Models have gotten a lot better at generating native iOS apps. The main appeal of RN was being able to leverage your web devs for mobile dev. that's what I did at my last company. And it's fine for a startup, but eventually you want dedicated native engineers bc each platform really deserves its own technical masters who can optimize for it.
But now that all code is generated, there's little upside to having an RN app... just start native. Your devs are barely going to be writing code anyway.
Nobody is talking about the real advantage of RN: Being able to release to the App Store without having to go through a review. That's so massive. Getting a bug fix out to users instantly, sneaking in optimizations, etc..
Sure, you need a review to release native code changes, and you should probably get a review if you have big feature changes just for the sake of Apple not banning you. But in practice, it removes one of the biggest annoyances of developing for the App Store.
This is true in a very real sense – models can help you build native apps very quickly, no question. But how do you keep them from drifting apart from one another as you add/change features or design? Right now, there isn't much tooling for this.
React Native's advantage of having a single source of truth for code hasn't quite gone away yet, imo.
I've only read about it from it showing up on hn[1][2], but you can use slick to convert your swiftui to jetpack compose for a andriod build from the ios source of truth
i think you would have your coding agent work on both code bases at the same time. You could also task with generating identical tests for each platform. It's easier for a model to keep up with that kind of tedium than a human. Plus you can just tell the model to keep re-doing things until you're happy and it won't quit.
Also, having agents trace and document every logic path to compare with another codebase works well in my experience. It can certainly do that better than me, i would give up and start taking shortcuts pretty early in a process like that.
You create a source of truth which defines all the features and requirements. This can be UI tests, MD files, database, diagrams, whatever that fits your use case.
the problem is that single-source advantage gradually falls away as you develop your software into something that feels good to use on each platform. and once you have a quality product you're left with perfunctory coupling that makes it harder to adopt the latest platform features
But the screens should look different, right? That's the point of building separate iOS vs. Android versions is to make each version "native" to its platform. The feature-set should be the same, but the interfaces can diverge.
You always still needed a specialist per-platform even if most of the code was RN or KMM[0]. But I agree - a thousand not-great mobile apps sprang from this idea.
[0] I always thought the best answer was something like KMM to do all the backend comms and local data model in a shared way, and then a bespoke UI building on what that shared code exposed.
If you put every company that needs/has an app on a spectrum, there is a line somewhere that roughly divides them into two groups: where Electron/React Native/etc. makes sense or not. It's just a normal engineering decision: solving problems given limited resources. Companies have different problems and different resources.
I think people in the tech community have probably also noticed that it's rather popular to have an absolute opinion on the goodness or badness of these tools. There's some magical thinking borne from ignorance that everyone just ought to go native or that React Native is the best thing ever to be used everywhere or that AI makes this line disappear entirely.
I think these takes serve little value and distract from what’s interesting, and what the subtitle to this article says: that this line is moving due to AI. And I think that’s probably right.
And the “makes sense or not” part can change based on a bunch of factors.
It’s actually pretty common for a new company to start fully native (only iOS, few features, limited scope), then switch ro react native/electron (need to support more surfaces, features are being developed too quickly), then back to fully native (can afford individual dev teams for each platform).
The main cost of two engineering teams shipping identical products in my opinion isn't the cost of those extra engineers, it is in the product and organizational challenges of keeping those two products that need to be identical in sync. I am very bullish on coding agents but would be wary of this turning into a mess.
Yeah, massive parts of our community and ecosystem miss that something can be right today, and wrong tomorrow, and having to change along with your users and needs is OK. You'll never be able to anticipate what the business needs in the future, so stop pretending your software design can be done once and then just coast on that, because that's typically not how a software project should be run long-term or even medium-term.
The problem with tomorrow is sunk costs. There are many places I wish we had made a difference decision in the past - but we need to balance that with cost to make changes when what we have works okay.
There's also a recency bias, where you ignore how valuable some decision was in the past and ignore the fact that you maybe wouldn't even get to the place you are if "you made a different decision in the past".
I can't count how many times I've said "this is really bad, I it is worth rewriting to fix all the issues", only to discover that there were good reasons for all the past decisions and so we end up with the same mess as before - except that now I know what it must be that way.
Not always, but very often people in the past had good reason for what they did.
Those are the comments that should persist in the code. I hate when the AI edits and removes my "why" comments. I want the refactor to make it less messy but keep why it's that kind of mess.
In my experience it comes from the business and people who think if we need to touch the same code twice in the same month it is somehow a moral failing of some kind.
> I think people in the tech community have probably also noticed that it's rather popular to have an absolute opinion on the goodness or badness of these tools.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Nuance is a thing.
These tools are bad, objectively! They give inferior user experiences, and waste resources (ever more important now with RAM prices what they are).
But that doesn't mean I can't understand or even agree with a company for using them. Building the same native application for more than one platform is expensive and time-consuming. Most of the time I'm happy to prefer an app built with a cross-platform framework vs. not having one at all.
(To be fair, though, if there's a webapp, 90% of the time I'll prefer that over an Electron app. But nothing meets a well-built native app.)
I think you contradicted yourself. If a tool provides better value for the time spent for a company, I don’t understand how you can call it objectively bad.
You can say it’s objectively bad from a technical perspective, but clearly that’s only one part of the equation.
I think they were speaking as a user. These tools create inferior products. (Still not technically objective, but true nonetheless.)
That doesn't mean companies should necessarily avoid them. As a user, I always want the best possible user experience, but a company can't prioritize that above all else, and I know that.
I am so tired of existing react/electron applications being compared against imaginary, hypothetical "native" applications.
Like, it's fine to criticize something, "this component doesn't follow the OS's UI guidelines" or "this scrollbar disappears when the mouse isn't over it which is a bad UX" or whatever, but this generic "oh this is bad but if it was rewritten it would be perfect" is annoying.
It's always the preference of people defending bad decisions to compare them to doing nothing.
What you're seeing is people actually making that case instead of forcing it. They're saying that if the app wouldn't exist without this bad thing, then it is appropriate to compare using the bad thing to doing nothing.
You just seem to be demanding that people not mention other ways to do things, or you'll get angry.
I'm not the OP, but my understanding (and I agree) is that it can seem like a better value when a subset of factors are considered (ones that IT can measure, biases in IT against Apple etc.) and it leads the company into making a choice that is worse for them overall.
It's objectively bad because of how hot my phone is.
It's subjectively bad because it's an embarrassment. Like you're seriously going to tell me something like Discord, worth 15 BILLION, cannot afford native apps? Spare me.
What really grinds my gears is Microsoft replacing native apps with Electron. Trillion dollar company who is so cash strapped they have no choice but to punt to the easy development path.
The thing that makes Microsoft's case particularly annoying is that they have demonstrated how they can develop half-decent Electron apps with VS Code, but have simply elected not to with anything that's not VS Code.
Like yes, I'd prefer native and MS can certainly afford to take that path, but they can't even be bothered to make sure that most of their Electron apps land on the upper half of the quality spectrum.
What's extra egregious there is I do understand the logic because developing for Windows is such a fucking nightmare, that they're also responsible for.
A badly made native app is worse than a well built react-native app. There are plenty of anti-patterns that will ruin your native app.
In stories like this its much more likely that they just got sick of refactoring a big ugly code base so got buy in to throw it all away and starting over and the justification is native. Wait like 5 years and there will be a new react-native corss platform app because the native apps have too much cruft. Assuming we still have human in the loop then.
> A badly made native app is worse than a well built react-native app. There are plenty of anti-patterns that will ruin your native app.
Sure, but thats not an interesting observation unless there is something about react-native that makes those apps consistently higher quality than native apps.
On the other hand, like-for-like C/C++/Rust performs better than javascript in terms of CPU and memory use, so the null hypothesis is that re-implementing would , in fact, improve things. There's little reason to think a priori that the end result would somehow be worse.
Nuance is always a thing. Native apps are faster and better most of the time. Electron and React Native wouldn't annoy me so much if they were used with small apps where it's not worth over-optimizing.
However, it's now the default for Multiplatform apps that are used constantly, including IDEs, chat apps, etc. They gobble up memory and cpu cycles and are constantly getting updates due to the shitshow that is the javascript dependancy ecosystem.
> These tools are bad, objectively! They give inferior user experiences, and waste resources (ever more important now with RAM prices what they are).
They can be "bad" in some dimensions (as you mentioned) while being "good" in others (dev productivity).
These frameworks didn't become popular for no reason. They have value. The parts that are "good" can easily outweigh the parts that are "objectively bad" when they enable a smaller team to get things out the door they would have had trouble shipping otherwise.
A well built native app can still serve as a vector for harvesting personal data in ways you cannot control. A web app is inherently superior because of its security envelope.
I don't have any actual experience with React Native and Electron, but with that caveat out of the way I personally think tools get far too much blame that should be on developers.
For an example that I actually have experience with, React very frequently gets criticized for being slow, heavy etc. React is not slow. I can make (have made) fast and snappy websites in react. React can render at more than 60fps if necessary, and if the code isn't shit. The fact that someone else has made a slow buggy mess with React does not prove that react is bad, it simply proves that the developers are bad. At this point, someone will typically interject with something along the lines of "but react makes it hard to make fast websites" and to that I simply say no it doesn't. I've seen what makes react apps slow, and it's generally just bad code. The developers who make shitty react apps would make equally shitty apps with any tool because they're the problem not the tool. They don't know how to build good software and literally no tool can help them because it's simply a matter of understanding programming and the sad fact is most developers suck at programming.
I graduated university with about 200 others and out of those people who have the same degree as I do, very few were even decent at programming. I know that because I was the guy who helped them complete their assignments and I was a TA in several different classes, and I'm telling you the overwhelming majority of students sucked at programming even after 2-3 years of studying it.
After graduating I've worked on many different web apps and other stuff, and I've seen an overwhelming trend of trash code and bad developers. The people who actually care about writing good software and have the mental facilities to do so are few and far between. And that's why most software sucks. A good developer can write good software using pretty much any of the popular tools. The tools are just different ways to do the same stuff. Sure there's some overhead with react etc but it's really not that significant, the significant part is all the trash code people put on top of it.
> React can render at more than 60fps if necessary, and if the code isn't shit.
Sorry, that doesn't really come across as a ringing endorsement. React apps are typically not doing anything complex so rendering at less than 60fps should only happen if you're doing very computationally intensive things or writing bottom-quartile quality code.
Windows desktop native is WinUI 3 and Windows App SDK, for better or for worse. No amount of Rust and tokens will recreate everything you get out of the box with that stack. Native needs to feel native.
The last time Windows UI felt native was maybe Windows XP. Maaayyybe 7, if we are generous. It also has to do with sluggish or no feedback by UI widgets, due to the trend of flat everywhere.
This is one of those “oh gosh” posts at first glance, then you actually think about it, and it’s 100% correct. Python, Node exist to save the precious commodity of developer time. Once that’s no longer precious, best value comes from purified custom Rust, no attack surface from huge libraries, optimized performance for the specific task on all possible hardware.
not sure why you're getting downvoted. but if you're building even very popular applications, it is quite easy to see how LLMs are very well suited for this type of consistency job.
- they follow instructions quite well.
- are tireless at doing mechanical ports between languages and frameworks.
Then why aren't people doing that? Microsoft has as much access to cheap tokens as any software company around, right, so you'd think they would be leading the way.
Keep in mind, claudecode and the other coding agents were pretty bad until around Jan of this year (2026). So it's only been about 9 months since devs have had decent coding agents and even less time has elapsed since somewhat wide adoption.
I didn't downvote but I'd expect downvotes for a completely unnuanced thought terminating cliche that ignores everything in the thread. AI fanaticism doesn't help but lots of people don't get downvoted for that alone.
> I think people in the tech community have probably also noticed that it's rather popular to have an absolute opinion on the goodness or badness of these tools.
For a while it seemed that having deeply held, nuance-free opinions about technologies was a sign of being wise and experienced.
The slightly lighter version of this was having near-absolute convictions but leaving a tiny exception for extreme cases to try to demonstrate that you weren’t being unreasonable.
These would usually follow trends when something would spread like a meme. Recent examples include “Everyone should use SQLite for everything” and the ironically closely related “Just use PostgreSQL for everything”. The typical pseudo-nuance would be “unless you have FAANG scale” to imply that there is no nuance until your user base includes most of the developed world.
> For a while it seemed that having deeply held, nuance-free opinions about technologies was a sign of being wise and experienced
this was every DBA in the late 90's and early 2000s when talking about their pet RDBMS. To me, it was a signal to avoid that person unless absolutely necessary.
Using cross-platform web technology is absolutely a nuanced engineering decision that is the right one for many businesses. What is categorically bad is bundling a standalone browser runtime for every single service, wasting user’s storage and memory when you could just have a website in a browser.
Is there any major browser now that doesn’t support saving websites as apps? Electron is simply a suboptimal and incorrect way of producing web apps.
That decision is easy: do users leave bad reviews for bundling a few hundred MB of Chromium?
Do they leave bad reviews if your app malfunctions due to the system webview behaving differently than the Chromium version you tested with?
Forget about saving websites as apps, no one does that. Not sure if it works on Desktop Safari, it certainly doesn't on iOS Safari. Not even persistent storage is offered for PWAs. Apple likes the billions in AppStore fees they rake in every quarter.
It's funny how folks can't even get that number right. Depending on how much you care to optimize, Electron adds 50 to 80 MB to your application. Those multi hundreds of megabyte apps? Yeah that's not because of electron, that's things like "we couldn't be bothered to actually think about the assets we bundled in". 100 uncompressed 16 bit PNG? Sure why not. 20MB worth of fonts because we don't like the built in ones and no we've never heard of subsetting? Let's go. 50MB worth of .json data files that we couldn't be bothered to gzip first? Who's going to notice!
Electron is way bigger than an app needs to be, of course, but those giant apps that you hate, 250MB just for a health tracker? That's not electron being the problem.
Sure, cross-platform frameworks were great. I do think LLMs are changing the game, however. If you have a robust set of tests, it's much easier to maintain native versions of an app, compared to the past.
Apart from the hassle that OSes put in the way of PWAs (intentionally, but that's another topic), a local Node app simply has a different kind of system access compared to a web app.
Most apps won't need these capabilities to function, but they are there, for all purposes good and bad:
- background activities with fewer restrictions
- less restricted file system and sensor access etc
- ...
sure, many app use this for nefarious things.
But real use cases don't need to be sophisticated rendering algorithms or what not.
I think good streaming apps also use these capabilities, for example, for performance.
Is everyone wrong, or is there more to it than you can see from where you stand?
I don't want to spend much time on this comment so I risk not making a sufficient point, but something I notice is that you're appraising the situation from a purely technical point of view. The technical component is just one piece of what makes a whole product. I think Apple is probably a good example: they regularly make decisions that bother the hell out of tech-centered minds.
These takes are also a bit premature. Wait until the new apps have rolled out and users are happy.
Most likely this will work out fine, but big rewrites like this have a big enough chance of going off the rails that I wouldn't shout success from the rooftops just yet. I'm sure Digg engineering was proud of their rewrite too.
There’s risk to doing anything. There’s risk to doing nothing. A bit off topic but my perception is that organizations bias towards doing something more often than they should.
Absolute opinions are simple and travel better on media.
"The right tool for the job" is too complicated for a lot of people to understand. Tradeoffs? Tradeoffs require understanding.
"XYZ is the best, just use it" is much easier, especially if you don't know how to make decisions and don't really care. Then you defend your non-decision by parroting what you read.
I remember a product manager talking crap about Kafka years ago, and I started digging in as to why he didn't like it, and all of his reasons were marketing FUD from competitors. It was odd, his understanding of it was a Potemkin village.
All tools presumably solve a problem. If you understand that envelope you can figure out if it works for you and your envelope.
We did the same thing - had 90% of it overnight. Then spent a few days in the background tweaking for polish.
Our app is smaller, and has about 15-20 screens. I started at about 12:30am by giving codex a goal and it inventoried every screen based on the react native code, then created android and iOS directories, used maestro (I had already set up this tooling for a previous personal app build a few weeks prior), and had the whole thing working in android and iOS in the morning. Took it about 6 hours while I slept.
The app is way smaller, launches instantly, and the android app is (supposedly) native looking. I say supposedly because I don't use android phones. But it's using Jetpack Compose and Kotlin.
And I don't know Swift or Kotlin. I honestly don't see the point of React Native anymore. I know Expo is doing very cool agentic stuff, but I'm just not sure why I'd need any of it when I can write a native app.
Seriously! What a bonkers thing to claim. "I had codex use maestro so I assume it made Android work well and idiomatically".
It's a fine project to do but clearly they put zero value on being familiar with the project's codebase/stack and ecosystem, which makes me feel fear in my heart when I imagine the first "production is down" page coming in. I already hated mobile because it's so much harder to maintain than web (and I don't do any spyware or IAP so no benefits for me there); this yolo approach would give me constant dread.
It shows that at least some software development is moving away from code and to product management instead. I'm not passing judgement on that; I actually think that's great for a lot of software. It is interesting to see the shift happening though and will be fun to see if the general quality of software noticeably changes over the next few years.
I answered elsewhere that I don’t personally use Android phones but we have people on our team that do. Which is why I don’t want to personally claim that it feels native.
But yes we are having real Android users test it.
So it’s quite the contrary. I care MORE what real users say. I can only guarantee that the app does things when I tap. So I’m not trusting the agent on UX, only on functionality. But whether it feels native, I am relying on those users in our team.
> It's a fine project to do but clearly they put zero value on being familiar with the project's codebase/stack and ecosystem,
As much as I dislike it, I think that's the future of _all_ non-critical software (think social media, crms, CI, food delivery etc). Leadership in many companies is explicitly asking employees to have multiple agents running through the day and that will lead to this.
Read this for example: https://www.uber.com/in/en/blog/efficient-software-factory/ . A very useful system, I am sure. But when you have AI at every layer from code to review to triaging, rest assured AI is the only know who knows your system. And you better hope it's not telling you that something is load bearing during an incident.
I wrote every single line of the react native app we ported, and maintained it for 9 years. So suffice to say, I'm familiar with the code.
But I am going to always prioritize the user experience over a developer (like myself)'s need for satisfaction to see code. And a pure native app is _always_ going to behave better than react native.
> And a pure native app is _always_ going to behave better than react native.
Maybe iOS is better about consistency, but I've used enough horribly made Android apps that I would not expect one that's vibe coded to behave better than a professionally made react native version.
Presumably a sarcastic post, but this is actually going to be how things are done soon. I had a box that OOMed and needed to be rebooted every few weeks. It was a disaster recovery standby box so figuring out what was going on never rose to the top of my priority list. So I asked Claude to dig into it (proxying the commands it wanted to run through me) and in an hour it had diagnosed the problem, fixed it, and taught me a bunch about memory usage in our system on modern kernels.
Not sarcastic. I have a moderately successful app and I haven’t once looked at the code (though I am capable, so far atleast). The only time I open Xcode is if I have to modify signing certificates. I did set up a slack workflow with a “fix it” button that basically tells Codex to fix the issue, run comprehensive tests, manually UI test for that particular issue with computer use and then deploy it.
You just install it on your phone and use the app.
Maintainability concerns are entirely overblown by people who don't use agentic AI to develop large mobile apps, but anyway give their opinion as if they had that experience.
I put in a few hundred hours, and I reached the same conclusion as Shopify. With reviews from other models and then a manual QA pass the result is fully usable.
I work as a professional app developer. And I find this take to be naive.
Most of the time when I review code from AI, there is always something to improve.
It’s either a maintenance issue. e.g., Opus recommended and implemented a fix for a database corruption crash. This was ~400 lines of code with many moving parts. I reviewed, and found out Android Room library already handles this recovery case, and all I needed was a 10 liner PR that catches this exception and ignores it.
The maintenance is not only the burden on the human and LLM. With too many moving parts, it becomes harder and harder to build and verify the correctness of future features. Yes you can write test for this and that, but it didn’t need to exist in the first place.
The second problem is correctness issues. Especially the edge cases. You cannot just manually test out a race condition on a phone! Sometimes it happens! Sometimes it doesn’t! If it leads to a visible signal like a crash, then yes, you can try to reproduce it. But there are a lot of these that are “silent” and would just lead to bad experiences.
We already had a software quality crisis! And I think such views only exacerbate the situation! Quality matters!
And this is not an anti-AI stance. I vibe code personal projects where I don’t even look at the code. But when I use AI as a professional engineer, I act like a professional. Because these products do have an impact on people’s lives.
So you don't use agentic AI to develop a large mobile app and you think my take is naive?
I also used to work full time as a Android developer for five years, and I'm pretty sure I know better than you about the quality of my app that I work on everyday.
Are there cybersecurity concerns in the frontend? I would have thought you have to assume the client is untrusted and only do security work on the backend
I have been getting these comments often here, including concerns about my non existent backend's security.
Last time, when I pointed out that the attack surface for mobile apps is typically very small, some users started to talk about zero day vulnerabilities in the OS's media handling, as if it was a concern for my app implementation.
You don’t believe how often people leave secrets in the app or use webviews and iframes badly, misconfigure OAuth in client side and so on. There are many issues where secure API does not help.
No, they said they don't use android so don't know the native UX. You can test your app on the platform and confirm that the functionality all works, but how well it adheres to the platform's design language is subjective and hard to say if you aren't used to the platform.
Same result here just using plain Opus 4.8+. I had a web ap with a PWA approach. Now I have an iOS app written in Swift/SwiftUI and an Android app in Kotlin in the appstores. I do not know how to code a single line of Swift or Kotlin. You just test the app and iterate with the AI over it until it is stable and does what it should.
I am using Gemini as well as Opus on a somewhat small project in React Native and I can not imagine this thing being able to build the whole thing on its own without it being a dumbpster fire.
Can you share some details of how you work? What models? What harness?
I use Codex and Claude Code desktop apps. I generally use only the SOTA, now Astra and Fable 5.1, Opus 5 when Fable runs out.
I don't know if Gemini is suitable.
I had few issues with my native iOS app, the results are just decent after a few iterations, the models do what I ask them to do. Where do you see the problem?
The LOC for my app is now at almost 200k + 110k lines of test code.
We have people on the team that are android users. I just meant that I don't want to evaluate whether it feels "native" as I personally am not an Android user.
React native is an obstacle compared to what clear Swift/Kotlin code may produce. Swift is very powerful and Kotlin, in all honesty, is the first reasonable and very useful thing to come to the JRE ecosystem (save for Scala, which is, well, quite complex still).
Myself turned some python code to Swift, and keep doing so, without trouble or pressure. Of course, I've been doing fair amount of systems programming for 20 years now, so not sure what to advice newcomers. But this approach to dev DOES work for me very well.
Sounds like the advice to newcomers is to not worry about trying to learn a programming language. There already is an llm to program for you, and do it better than you could, so just learn how to talk.
While I mostly agree with you, this is the kind of thing that might not have been done if the AI couldn't do the heavy lifting.
They had previously chosen React Native because it was easier for programmers to keep it updated, since it was really just 1 codebase. With AI, those same programmers can do the more difficult version, keeping the native apps updated separately.
So did it kill a job, or did it make it possible for the existing programmers to do it better?
It's the kind of thing that is really hard to determine in general, but here, it really does sound like they only made the change because it became possible with existing resources. They would not have done it otherwise.
Of course it would. Supply and demand. Some companies would decide not to bother. Others would decide it was worthwhile. The limited pool of supply (app developers) would be distributed across demand.
>> Some companies would decide not to bother. Others would decide it was worthwhile.
The parent's point is that AI lowers the cost/benefit ratio drastically, by reducing the cost. So companies that would have shied away from projects like this pre-AI are now pulling the trigger without much hesitation.
Just like this has made Web devs into Mobile devs, so could Mobile devs leverage AI to work in Web shops.
I'm not an optimist but there could be an increase of available apps being created which would still keep people employed. Theoretically the cost of creating an iOS app for a company without an engineering team dropped from several hundreds of thousand to a few thousand or hundreds, which could be paid out to a freelancer with AI. More people would go into freelancing for industries which were not contemplated before due to cost.
This is an incredibly boring task. Nothing new, just rewrite everything to just see it all rewritten again in 1 year. Perfect for LLMs and something humans shouldn't do.
We all want super exciting jobs. But plenty have boring jobs like this. Between not having a job or having a boring job that pays well, the choice is obvious for many of us.
While I agree with that statement -- that is also a lot of jobs. We have a lot of humans -- not every single developer sits in the innovation seat. The fewer the jobs available the less employable humans.
I think that rewrite - if AI enabled - owes its thanks to the legion of individuals who put their code up on the internet in the first place.
Previous company I worked for would have (and did) hire dedicated swift/java mobile developers to build and maintain ios and android native versions (largely porting functionality from an existing web application)
What's more likely (as others have said) is that the other thousand companies that can't afford to have dedicated staff would've just used React Native. So no jobs were lost, they weren't there in the first place. The places that have dedicated Swift/Java devs can now be more ambitious in what they build.
Really? I’ve worked with plenty of companies that had separate native iOS & Android teams. I don’t know any that use a compatibility layer. Unless by compatibility layer, you mean a web view.
Isn't ZDR only the case if you "opt out" through a setting? Lots of opportunities to make a mistake here, or for the LLM provider to play games. You could be unaware of the setting. The provider could reset the setting upon subscription lapse/renewal, application update, model release, etc. A developer could accidentally use their personal subscription (w/ setting on) on a work codebase.
Also what's the timing on this setting's effectiveness? What if before you knew to "opt out" you used the agent for a refactor and your entire repo got sucked up in inference? But then you opt out the next day? Is it too late?
The mistakes you describe are only possible if the company doesn’t really think there’s proprietary IP in the codebase.
If a company really believed there’s valuable IP in code, there would at a minimum, ban laptops or ban code on laptops[0], provide and maintain a centrally managed LLM gateway[1] that handles authentication, billing and model choice, have MDM to prevent you from using your own Claude login, etc.
[0]: For example when I worked at Google, the proprietary google3 codebase cannot exist on laptops because there are no tools to download it to your laptop.
That’s the case with a personal subscription directly with OpenAI or Anthropic, but enterprise customers are opt-in, AFAIK.
And there are solutions around it from other providers and model routers. OpenRouter lets you explicitly say on a per-request basis you don’t want to be routed to a provider that trains on your input, for example.
Definitely agree. Most developers could build a basic Twitter or Facebook clone. The hard part is getting the users, content, and relationships that make the product worth coming back to.
People routinely decompile and recompose existing binaries, and if you use "obfuscation" in your app it's still a small bump.
In today's age, IP is no longer a tangible concept that gives any advantages in software. What differentiates two businesses isn't their IP, it's their relationships and their moat.
Most vendors that had protected proprietary IP are now irrelevant within their vertical. What saves them are the protection provided by patents, which is public.
True, but shops are exposing everything to Claude or Open AI. It's akin to outsourcing all manufacturing to subcontractors in China. That was cheaper, but extremely short-sighted. Now so many products have cheap Chinese knock-offs that are nearly the same as the originals because the subcontractors made both.
Next up, designing an even higher level language which will be used by LLMs to compile to high level languages like kotlin or swift. Just store instructions for LLMs in repos.
We don’t hold on to a decision just because it was successful at the time. When a core assumption changes, we’re willing to go back and ask whether it’s still the right call. LLMs changed one of the core assumptions behind our 2020 decision, so we reevaluated our mobile stack from first principles.
Perhaps. I can absolutely see that being more attractive especially with things like the Duo where, I assume, SwiftUI gives you a number of things "for free".
That said, the massive downsides to native are:
- App Store Review time, this used to be hours to 1-2 days, now it can take a week or more
- In the same vein, you can do updates without waiting on native when using web technologies to build your app. We can go from a bug in the field to a fix in <1hr easy. Try doing that with a native app
- Cross-platform, yes LLMs mean you can create a native iOS and Android app but you have to keep those in sync to say nothing of web (if you want to offer a web app as well)
- Like the point above: Web, if you want to support web, why not get the other platform for cheaper (shared logic)
Your assumptions are very outdated. App Store review times are typically < 24 hours and have been for the last couple of years. And KMP makes cross-platform a real thing now, rather than hacking a web view into a native shell, which was always the worst possible user experience.
I'm afraid you are the one out of date here. App Store Review times have ballooned in the last few months. Marco Arment talked about this publically (on the ATP podcast) about how his app was stuck in review for over 2 weeks IIRC and I've seen 2 days as the minimum review time in the last few months with some taking a week or more.
Yes, for a while they were doing very well and I even once had an app reviewed in <1hr but the average has been creeping up. LLM/Vibe coding is what is often blamed for this increase though at the end of the day it's Apple's problem/fault for not staffing the review department better.
This is only anecdotal, but I had a review on a brand new app turned around in ~6 hours 2 days ago. A lot of it has always been luck of the draw, though, granted.
I agree it's anecdotal but that's all I have to go off and global averages don't help me at all. The problem it's a complete crap-shoot. You have no way of knowing if you are going to get a quick turnaround or a long one, it has zero bearing on if it's a new app or update or the size of the update, it's completely random. I cannot plan around random which is why I've opted for web-tech-based apps (Capacitor) with OTA updates so I can get fixes out just as quick as I could get webapp updates out.
I just ran an analysis of my apps and the fastest was 8hrs (June 20th) but since then it's been trending upwards with my last 3 updates coming in at 40hrs, 67hrs, and 98hrs. These are all my apps, the company I work for has at least 2 recent updates that took over a week. That's just absurd.
If the App Store can commit to 24hrs being the max time then maybe I'd be interested but for the foreseeable future I'll "Settle" for instant updates when I have a fix ready instead of waiting on Apple. Especially with how random approvals are (not just the time, the approval itself), I'll ship a tiny fix and App Review will kick it back for some native API I've been using since version 1 that they now want more info about. I don't fancy having my businesses at the whim of Apple Review.
Yes, that's fair. I'd argue, though, that the training required to get your team up and running should be fairly minimal - Kotlin is a very easy language to pick up, especially for people coming from TS - and will pay off dividends in the medium to long term.
You get all of those, to some extent, if you use React Native. You still need to do reviews for significant changes due to app store rules but you can OTA update most changes without waiting on a review. Even web support is there.
There are cons to targetting web/PWA too. Push notifications work but Safari on iOS only allows them if the user adds your website to their home screen. It also doesn't support prompting the user to install the PWA so you have to instruct your users to tap the Share button, tap View more, and then tap Add to Home Screen. And as soon as they tap the Share button the menu opens on top of your instructions so they need to remember the steps to continue. It's hard to defend this behavior because the user will still need to allow notification permission when they open your PWA from their home screen. It's an unnecessary hurdle.
> I can absolutely see that being more attractive especially with things like the Duo where, I assume, SwiftUI gives you a number of things "for free".
Apple may not trumpet it as loudly, but these freebies are handed out in UIKit too, for cases where declarative UI is cumbersome.
Generally I've found that while SwiftUI is great for little self-contained bits of UI like table/collection view cells and simplistic template-like apps, it tends to become a bear with complex apps, so it's nice to have both options.
I'm sorry but that data does not at all square with my experience. I'm seeing 2 days+ as the average and I haven't seen sub-24hrs in months. I oversee ~20 apps and I can tell you iOS review times have been trending upwards for the last few months.
Apologies, I used to use appreviewtimes .com [dead], which scraped tweets and was pretty accurate, but is dead now. I posted what seemed to be a decent replacement, but will take your word it’s not.
Edit: was going to update the earlier comment but just hit the 2 hr mark.
For all I know it is accurate for them but I encourage you to hover on the bars and see the min/max. That's where the issue is. I wrote more about it here [0] but the TL;DR is that it's wildly inconsistent, sometimes it can take a few hours or <12 hours and sometimes it can take a couple days. It's impossible to plan around and nothing drives me crazier than having a fix written but waiting for Apple to get around to reviewing it.
Definitely makes sense for a large org with massive resources (such as Shopify) to do this. But for everyone here pondering what to use for their startup or a smaller project, there are still important trade-offs. In the past few years I've launched multiple cross-platform Flutter apps and multiple native iOS and Android apps using Jumpstart iOS and Android (native templates from the GoRails guys which leverage web views from your Jumpstart Rails server). The latter gave me web, iOS and Android out of the box and was vastly less costly to build, even with AI. For entrepreneurs who like Ruby on Rails, Jumpstart is my favorite for launching rapidly, and since the mobile apps are easy-to-modify iOS and Android projects, it's designed so you can either add more custom Hotwire Native Bridge Components or just write Swift and Kotlin to replace functionality with native code. Eventually you could write away all of the Jumpstart webview stuff, but you'd only do that if you had more runway, like if you have plenty of time or you start making lots of money. I've worked for clients whose ideas failed--not because of my code, of course. :)
It's better to find out quickly if you can get traction rather than building something requiring more maintenance. For most bug fixes or enhancements, you make them in the Jumpstart Rails side and they should up instantly in the mobile apps without going through app review again! Most projects are not being built in companies the size of Shopify, so I caution anyone who wants to just get the project out there to use platforms that give them more leverage. And no, I'm still not a fan of low-code or no-code, because I know what it's like to have to maintain apps over many years.
Oh, and I still always warn clients to stay away from native mobile unless they absolutely need it, because even with AI, maintaining just a web app is still light years faster, and far more pleasant. I know from very, very, very recent experience that testing subscriptions is still annoyingly cumbersome in the flaky Apple and Google sandbox environments, and Stripe for web apps is night and day easier to test. Testing on mobile is better than it used to be, but sometimes when I'm waiting for builds onto a physical device or for confusing settings in App Store Connect or Google Play Console to take effect (or just fine where they've been moved to), I think about how a manager 20 years ago was telling me how slowly his development lifecycle was when he used to burn software onto ROM chips. So web is still the way to go, and native mobile only if you absolutely have to. And if you have tons of time or money, sure, start with plain native.
Edit: As a web developer for decades, I still find both Jumpstart iOS/Android and Flutter to be preferable to React Native.
I’m surprised we aren’t seeing it more already. LLMs suddenly make it reasonable to maintain multiple native apps. I’d love to see this start to supplant Electron and its ilk on the desktop.
Any education required for engineers to switch to native or the agents are handling the details on their own? Wondering if architecture or the new languages require ramp up.
They created a mess in 2020 and hopped on over to a job at FAANG and now a fresh batch of Waterloo graduates want to do the same - maintaining somebody else's turds is beneath a Waterloo graduate on his way to becoming a manager who never touches code ever again :)
I'm sitting here at my desk overlooking Cordova Street. The street that Apache Cordova is named after. I've seen this debate for almost two decades now.
Teams jump on the latest cross-platform framework assuming that it will reduce headcount cost at the expense of having a lowest-common denominator app on each platform.
The latter is true but the former is false.
What ends up happening is that teams start as 20 iOS engineers & 20 Android engineers. They adopt something like React Native. Then you end up with a team of 20 product engineers and 20 tooling and framework engineers.
I've seen that countless times in the last two decades.
I've dumped all cross-platform frameworks as well. I tried many of them but they just weren't good enough, even for simple stuff. There were always glitches and teething problems that marred the overall quality compared to the native version.
I'm currently maintaining versions for both iOS and Android.
> I'm sitting here at my desk overlooking Cordova Street. The street that Apache Cordova is named after. I've seen this debate for almost two decades now.
The debate has been taking place on the actual street?
This is probably the end now. People don't debate anymore whether they should write only in assembly vs. in C. Sometimes new abstractions emerge and they replace something completely. This time the abstraction was LLM.
As the builder of a post-AI, cross-platform native app building framework like React Native, I 100% believe this to be a backwards move.
I've written up a load of thoughts about that here[1], but in summary for the Shopify case, they're basically going to be spending a ton more than they have to by switching back to multiple apps and I'd predict another swing back to better cross-platform tooling in the coming years.
> they're basically going to be spending a ton more than they have to by switching back to multiple apps
A ton more what? Money? AI costs are insignificant to a company like Spotify. Hell I've been using Astra fairly extensively at work and I've only racked up like $500 in the last month. Peanuts.
I agree w/ advising people to move off React Native, though I think the story that "LLM enabled an otherwise too-expensive migration to consider" is not correct.
I say this because I was part of a migration from a mid-size React Native app to a Swift/Kotlin native app redo. I did the majority of the technical work on it. The majority of the work occurred before January 2026 and without LLM code assistance, though later features in the app definitely used some.
For anyone considering this, I'd say that the migration is definitely worth considering without even taking LLM assistance into consideration. The continued React Native tax of unnecessarily difficult upgrades, impedance mismatch w/ underlying core frameworks, and incredibly uneven library quality just cause your business to really spend a lot of time shepherding the tech over the finish line. It's pretty wonderful to be back in the world of "build, compile, ship, be sure". One thing as a fundamental principle that I think the Shopify article 'gets' at, is the importance of the feedback cycle - investing time in our integration test story very early on both helped w/ my cycle times, and later in providing guardrails for LLM assistance.
All to say that this decision is worth considering without even taking LLM assistance into account.
I'm not totally following the part about the simulator(s), probably because I haven't actually done mobile development before.
> When simulator interaction is needed, the CLI can connect to them via a remote mode and drive the UI via commands without having to inspect the layout or the accessibility tree. This enables blazing-fast performance and E2E tests.
I think I'm not following. Don't you still need to test the accessibility tree and layout in the actual layer the user will interact with?
I have done some iOS development and still couldn't follow what the article was saying about the simulator. I'm actually quite interested in it, because (in my experience at least) verifying that the UI works as expected is quite painful with current LLMs and the developer tools available.
They talk about building a CLI and keeping business logic isolated, ok fine, but do they still run the simulator and take screenshots to verify their work?!
The shared specs and tests seem like a big part of making this work. I'd be interested in a follow-up after a few months of shipping new features on both platforms. Does keeping behaviour consistent still take much coordination, or have the agents reduced that work too?
React native isn't a terrible idea, its fundamental issue is that Apple does not allow for JIT compilation on iOS. So that means your app's js logic will be an order of magnitude slower than what you would get in the browser.
If the entire page is rendered on the server, the information required to do so is presumably reasonably approximate (same datacenter). If most of the page is rendered on the client, the information needs to be pulled in from arbitrary physical distances.
At some point the engineering really is this simple.
Which is also, or at least has also been a culture thing, because of the
"Oh no, we can't possibly do the computation of all that on our backend! Yikes! Let that run on every single client instead! Let users spend their own compute over and over."
Is it? I looked at the source but it doesn't appear to be react. It has a React API but also a "vanilla js" API and when I looked at the code it seems to be doing everything by hand:
And I'm just sitting here looking at the Codex desktop mac app wondering why a list, a chat window and textbox require a 579 MB download (compressed) and 4 GB of RAM.
Bragging about "using agents to code pre-GPT" is quite the corporate flex... weren't they notoriously bad back then? Might as well say, "We've been doing spreadsheets with quantum computing since 2016"
I would not say they were bad, mostly just primitive compared to what we have today. I can only presume they are talking about GitHub Copilot which was released before ChatGPT. I believe at the time it was little more than “spicy autocomplete.” Yet it could be surprisingly capable, e.g. I recall this blog, also pre-ChatGPT: https://medium.com/data-science/github-copilot-crushes-data-...
That said I did happen to work with a team in ‘21 - ‘22 that got access to an older coding model from OpenAI, also called Codex, through a corporate partnership. We also tested it out in an autocomplete UX. Our experience was rather hit-or-miss and I was a bit skeptical of AI-based coding at the time. That blog post above and others like it were an eye-opener and made me wonder if we were just “holding it wrong.”
Then ChatGPT was released. It was nowhere as good as the models today but it could write reams and reams of correct code and I realized the world had changed forever.
I'm skeptical. Pre-ChatGPT the models didn't understand tool calls or file editing so you couldn't really do targeted edits. So I really am not sure what they mean by this.
I mean, it's not impossible - I wrote a "coding agent" with GPT-3. It sucked balls. The idea was you write a Markdown spec file and the tool then compiled it to an equivalent source code one shotting it every time, but it hardly worked at all. The file changed too much every time and instruction following wasn't good enough, so it'd keep changing the interface exported by the file, and there were lots of bugs etc.
The GP misquoted the article. They actually wrote:
> Shopify has been using LLMs to build software since 2021
GitHub Copilot integrated into VS Code started becoming available that year. It’s definitely not a coding agent, but it was certainly LLM-assisted programming.
Wish they explained more. Even though I'm mostly native iOS its seems react native is better stack for AI and iteration (hot refresh etc) - the main reason pretty much all AI vibecoding app were implemented via expo/react native.
I also believed that finally this year react native got mature enough with improved tooling and performance to the point that it started to being 'boring' technology.
It's interesting that they don't mention Kotlin Multiplatform or any sort of shared core logic between their iOS and Android apps. Seems like maybe the apps are fully independent codebases but with shared specifications and tests? They say that agents:
> Dramatically reduced the cost of maintaining parity between platforms through shared specifications, tests, and review checkpoints
I've used Kotlin Multiplatform on a mobile project built back before AI coding took off, and it was super nice to have shared core logic between the apps and there weren't really any downsides on the Android side, but on the iOS side it was definitely an extra layer that didn't feel fully native.
Speaking personally, JVM toolchain bits like Gradle being involved is a turnoff and has kept me away from KMP. Last I checked support wasn't really there yet, but I'd much rather go the other direction and use Swift Package Manager and the associated toolchain on Android.
I work on an open source app that uses a shared swift core for the iOS and android apps and I think it's awesome. I think having all your business logic in swift is great.
At work, we use react native, and although the upgrades and stuff are painful, I'd never give up the ability to ship over the air updates.
Before I even opened the article I knew the reason was because LLMs don't need abstractions. React Native was always about making app construction easier for people who don't want to learn ObjC or Swift. If you're not writing or even reviewing the code yourself, this is unneeded overhead.
For a while I've been wondering why people are even bothering with high level languages if you aren't even gonna read the code.
I use Shopify app every day, multiple times a day to run my business and it has always been buggy and inconsistent for me on Android, and I don't expect this will make it any better, especially with more AI in the mix, but we shall see.
Who wants to bet there still won't be a dark mode?
I came here to say this. I also prefer fully native apps but this is the elephant in the room. If most of your web code can be re-used on native, that's a ton of tokens you won't have to pay for.
The promise of React Native was easing development burden from the web app to the native app. It makes sense if they are just using coding agents to cut out the framework and just go native.
That was my thought when I saw the headline and then reading the article confirms this is the inflection point per their own words. Very interesting.
That would be a huge mistake if we expect many more hardware and OS running them efficiently than just iOS and Android.
Best is to have an IR.
Now maybe that IR can be turnt into native code. But we shouldn't be constrained.
As an incoming framework author, SwiftUI is problematic for instance because it has a programming model which is dated.
And I don't particularly enjoy the language either. Looked fine at first and then got more complex than I feel is needed.
oh yeah, disclaimer: I write UI frameworks and dabble in PLs.
Just like any engineering and business decision, this is a tradeoff.
I probably don't see things from the same vantage point.
Can't help but notice a trend however. What if this accelerates, especially with AI being an enabler?
I think it'll become a trend at larger, well-capitalized companies and startups, but not universally. The article mentions hundreds of engineers have worked on Shopify's RN apps, so they're well positioned to maintain two native codebases with agents and practically infinite token spend. Migration will be a harder sell for resource-constrained businesses.
It also depends on features. Many apps don't rely on platform features (widgets, watch apps) and are essentially webviews, and those will continue to do just fine on RN.
Can React Native become a sort of Compiler which compiles to natives (Android/Apple) now that AI can help in that direction as well? I don't know much about mobile ecosystem though.
LOL, flutter/dart are pretty awesome and we have yet to encounter something that needed improvement.
We have small shims for IOS or Android BLE. But otherwise the discussion of should you go native is really a discussion of how many employees do you have to throw with this?
I remember their blog post claiming how much of a win it was to move over to react native and maintain high performance. They even listed their performance metrics. At that time I was a mobile developer for an e-commerce business and the metrics they were proud to share were unacceptable on our native apps. Here they are coming full circle
Most of the costs of switching have yet to be borne: user issues with untested code, maintenance issues with code few understand, and the strategic dependency on coding LLM's, which will change in character after providers go public and need revenue to fit reasonable stock multiples. All only get worse with time unless they're addressed proactively.
Native is the new React?! I could never drink the React Native cool aid due to background in performance optimization. Agents gave us the way to go native with less effort. Compilation is a good feedback loop for the agentic workflow as well.
Even a one-person team can now build/maintain native apps. It's literally a day of effort for an experienced dev working with the best current models to port an app to a new native platform. Maybe another day or two to walk through wiring up all the test harnesses needed to prove the app is working well without a human having to click everything. Until recently you still have to spend a bunch of time on making sure the UI looked and felt right, but models now have good enough vision capabilities to where even that can mostly be automated.
And, honestly, the cost of tracking React over time has always been higher than the cost of tracking native deployment options, which move more slowly and usually with more care than React, where breaking backward compatibility is just another Tuesday. I don't think the promise of React Native being an almost-free "native" app actually pans out in reality. I've never maintained a large React Native app, but from following some apps that are, it seems like it introduces a sizable amount of technical debt that you pay over time. So, in exchange for worse software you also get worse maintenance costs.
This is obvious in hindsight. I expect most companies that move fast and care about performance to abandon React Native. Code is cheap now, and the tradeoff of having a single codebase and only hiring React devs basically isn't there anymore.
They don't say anything in the post. But hotwire native supports pushing ui elements to ios and android. I imagine that might be part of the reason. I haven't built anything substantial with hotwire native though so I am not sure on all of the edge cases.
The underlying problem is that it's difficult to make a principled decision. So, it's ripe for SEO mining and such fuzzy takes happen.
The meta point of the article, I agree with though. The line is moving and AI makes having multiple platforms with code specific to them faster. Getting them right is still difficult.
With latest AI models, we will most likely see shift back to just fully Native apps even for smaller teams.
This is type of stuff that AI models do really well, if you get a particular feature or even a bigger app change done in one platform, you can just tell Opus or Fable to replicate to the other platforms and in almost all cases it will just do it as well as most human teams would have done it.
As things get more complicated and you need to worry about performance, where every millisecond counts, it makes sense to go to native: React Native and Flutter. These kinds of technologies are really good in terms of building faster and building one app which can work across. Where that deep performance might not be of a bigger concern, or you need to go build components natively and then expose them through React Native. I think, with AI, now building even a native app is faster, so moving back to native can make sense if you have a team which can understand how things work.
We made the same change for our patient app last month, took 2 months to rewrite from react-native to two mobile apps, but we had the PoC in under a week.
Interestingly Apple approved it very quickly, which I was afraid of given such a huge rewrite.
wow, what about electron.js the bloated cross-desktop GUI, can LLM either totally modernize wxWidgets(to avoid Qt's license mess), or create some light-weight cross platform GUI widgets to make GUI easy on windows/macos/linux that is not resource heavy?
When companies can afford to build a native app but instead use a WOSE (write once suck everywhere) toolkit, it’s because they don’t care about the user experience.
I've always been wary of React Native, because my impression is that it hides nuances of the underlying framework. You may be fine implementing 90% of your app but then need that last 10% and may get stuck.
But then I'm also wary of the recent trend by Google to create higher level frameworks on top of native Android APIs. It seems that these days for every Android API family, there is a Google framework that gives you a higher level API. I don't really understand it - is Google admitting that the quality of native Android APIs has eroded? Do they think developers are too inexperienced to deal with native Android APIs?
I'm also not sure I understand the how reasonably large companies consider two native apps to be too expensive. A startup may have a hard time funding both and may need to choose, but an established business should consider not only costs but also the better quality of user experience that native apps provide - that has to count for something.
I have not coded any mobile apps, I understand the downsides of using react native/electron due to them being web apps but what about things like Kotlin multi platform or flutter? Aren't this frameworks supposed to allow your to have 1 codebase and the apps be truly native instead of web apps?
I think any framework that aims to support desktop and mobile frome the same code per view/screen is doomed to either make one of those two awkward to use, or alternatively become itself very complex to use.
The most advanced in this area may well be websites and into those decades of work of thousands of engineers went (HTML, CSS and JS standards).
React Native apps are not webview based like Electron, they use native components. Arguably it is more native than flutter, which uses its own components designed to mirror native ones on Android and iOS.
Truth is the Shopify app is simple enough to get right by a model. Lots of things hare simpler to get right in native code, so it is to be reiterated - a lot of interpreter code/libs is going down the drain, along with the devs that write it. These are not needed anymore.
And, in all honesty, the difficult part with many projects is the bootstrap, the scaffolding, not the continuous dev. Agentic dev. made this a piece of cake.
The most interesting part to me here was the whole helix thing + how they split business logic and UI just so AI agents could drive/test state via a CLI. I hope they do a deeper blog post on just that. I’m surprised they are making “decouple state from UI” sound like something groundbreaking when that’s kind of been the foundation for any sane/testable app for a LONG time.
What I want to know is if the agents are so good that they can convert React Native code to native with amazing efficiencies along the way, what's stopping them from improving React Native itself?
Translating code from one language/framework to another is easy for AI to do, as it does not involve solving any novel problems. Making improvements to existing complex codebases is much harder.
when you are large enough to allocate sufficient resource, you should go native, if not, go flutter/react native etc. Its very simple decisions I guess.
this motivates me to rewrite my Flutter app in Swift. I gave up on deploying the app to Android because of their 20 testers requirement at that time (not sure if its still true).
Missing out on flawless App Intents integration could be business risk for Shopify once people get used to doing everything from a central chat interface, including shopping. I guess it's the real reason for the switch.
With cheap/fast code, it's easy to support multiple software stacks since most of the abstract engineering problems are already solved.
Code - especially straightforward low-level code - is so cheap and easy to write now that some people are building their own version control systems, game engines, and other low-level tooling.
Thus, some of the most demanding, human-centric work in software dev right now - where we now spend more time than coding - is in technical PM, UI/UX, devops, and overall architecture. The decision-making and design aspects of the job.
The rendering layer and APIs differ significantly between iOS and Android. Agents currently do not know how to test the UI, at least in my experience. I would be scared to do that migration right now.
Most large tech companies are just job programmes, i've seen so much effort, time, cost go into things that are truly unimportant.
React Native gives you (with asterisks) - one "source" for things to go wrong (as it sits on top of the native implementations of the UI + Native APIs). You are writing at that source level, and that filters down to the native builds. I am WELL aware to do certain things on each platform you need to get your hands dirty, but most apps are just serialising JSON from a database and displaying it.
AI writes very buggy, sloppy code.
They've decided - instead of containing that code to 1 surface, they would now have 2 surfaces they throw slop on top of.
I look forward to the 2027 version of this where they've gone back
I suspected we would start seeing these types of blog posts. Code is becoming low level, where people do not care what language, it is written in anymore. The cost of moving from one to another is becoming low.
What I find interesting is how AI has changed the cost of maintaining two native apps enough that a decision that made no sense a few years ago is worth revisiting now
There's quite a bit of research out there showing that application performance has a material impact on checkout conversion rate, so a single platform optimization potentially improves checkout for millions(?) of storefronts.
Isn't it silly that this even needs to be a conversation? Shouldn't we be able to write in any language we want and have the bindings for it to work cross platform? And shouldn't AI aid in building those cross-platform tools?
Maybe React Native isn't the right choice - but two tech stacks for virtually identical interfaces is dumb. Three stacks if you include browsers.
I wish more companies would just focus on webapps. It's infuriating how many services try to push an app on you when it's completely unnecessary. The other day I went to a restaurant that had an app. Not a fast food chain, a nice full-service place. No, I'm not going to download an app to order dinner.
“We debated between gradually migrating to native (brownfield) versus rebuilding them from scratch (greenfield)… However, this time greenfield emerged as a clear winner for the following reasons”
“To solve this problem, we built a system called Helix that takes a more gradual approach. It doesn't expect the first output to be correct, and builds a loop where an imperfect attempt simply cannot move forward until it becomes a good result.”
If this is driven by proper engineering then hats off! Supposedly a simpler app has already been migrated and they are working on migrating the main app using this approach. I don’t even know how I can be a cynic here… because the technology is good enough and so are the engineers I don’t know how management or executives could ruin it.
“…product quality people expect today. This isn’t just the same apps rewritten in different languages. We’re rebuilding them so both humans and agents can understand, test, and change them quickly.”
If this was written using AI and human-edited, you missed a spot.
Few of the biggest reasons for "migration" to the likes of React Native, and web-views et cetera, were "lack of talent", and not getting that talent fast, and for cheap, et cetera, while of course terming that as innovation, embracing the future, and "that's where the game is at" et cetera. Now with the LLMs that is mostly sorted. So if anything I'd be able to see the eradication of the Electron infestation in my lifetime. But then I see the very tools these LLMs are accessed with i.e harnesses (and of course mostly made by the LLM houses) are made of Electron or similar things (sometimes a Frankenstein like mix). And even today Claude Code shows up as `2.x.yyy` for process name ffs! So if anything, this is getting worse.
Then they say:
> We decided to switch from native to React Native in 2020 for three reasons:
> Stop building the same features twice
> Allow developers to work across the stack
> Spend less time chasing feature parity and more time shipping value
Totally!
Is there some kind of shame in just saying:
- we didn't want to hire more people
- we didn't want to pay those salaries
- we fired a lot of engineers with move to react native/hybrid in mind
- we could reuse the frontend devs (aka "full stack" folks) with or without some extra whippings ensuring they grok the bare minimum they'd need to build for mobile and test in on mobile.
I don't think its purely fashion here. React Native always incurred a bit of a performance & UX penalty, but many people decided that this tradeoff was worth it for the increase in product development velocity.
LLMs change the tradeoff and organizations would be remiss to not reconsider previous decisions.
If the majority of your app is native code and only a few places are stitched together via JS code that runs in the Hermes VM, then React Native is suitable for you.
Look at V8 vs. Hermes performance.
We use Flutter; we rarely need to write native code. We have three apps: Symbiote workout app, CalorieCodex, an AI calorie tracker app, and MacroCodex with 17,000+ users, all of them completely free
Your data is out of date. React Native performs within spitting distance of raw native now because in the last 2 years... it basically became native - it's now false dichotomy
This is what happens when you have too much cash on hand. You start wasting it and doing dumb things. Like rewriting entire apps in two different languages.
I'm certain that small startup Shopify could not afford to build native applications before AI became a thing. Thank god Sam Altman stole all the information in the world so that small family companies like this can finally have software too.
The article itself comes from AI ? It says twice why they switched from Native to React Native in two distinct paragraphs at the beginning. The rest sounds also AI slop jargon.
using React Native you end up having to drop into native code to do anything interesting or optimized, so it feels kind of pointless to not just use the platforms directly
In that case, Kotlin makes even more sense especially with Kotlin Native, and Rust is unnecessary.
Kotlin is already multi-platform and can be re-used as the business logic in iOS apps with Swift as the UI and the Android app with a Kotlin UI (Jetpack Compose) or both iOS and Android apps can be written entirely in Kotlin.
That vastly reduces the maintenance and Kotlin is reused across all apps and keeps it at 2 languages at most.
No need to introduce Rust to achieve the same goal.
> It doesn't expect the first output to be correct, and builds a loop where an imperfect attempt simply cannot move forward until it becomes a good result.
I've been around long enough to see this argument come and go under a lot of different names. This time it's AI. Maybe AI really does change the economics. But this post doesn't demonstrate it.
Talk to me in a year.
The side-by-side comparisons? Whoopty do. It's different code. Of course agents can produce two implementations that look the same today. That's not the hard part.
The hard part is keeping them the same.
Feature parity isn't an implementation cost. It's a divergence cost. It accrues over years across experiments, analytics, accessibility, edge cases, bug fixes, platform behavior, and a thousand little decisions which current agents aren't great at tracking.
Agents can write code fast but they aren't a panacea.
The load-bearing sentence in the whole post is this:
"Shared specifications, tests, and review checkpoints dramatically reduced the cost of maintaining parity."
Okay. For how long? By how much? Got any numbers to share? How will these hold up under contact with customer?
You haven't maintained parity yet. You've built prototypes. You're making a claim about a cost that compounds over time based on what it costs at t=0.
The other thing missing is the counterfactual. They keep comparing this rewrite to what a rewrite would have cost before coding agents. But what if you point those same agents at the existing RN codebase?
If agents make software development cheaper, they make RN development cheaper too. And now you're modifying one implementation instead of generating, testing, reviewing, and reconciling two.
The tooling section makes this even stranger. They find that agents are bad at driving simulators, so they pull business logic out of the UI, make it runnable headlessly, and expose a CLI.
That's a good idea! Do that!
But that's an architecture change, not an argument for native. You can make an RN codebase agent-friendly without rewriting five apps.
Then you get to "Preventing slop," which is probably the most important section in the post. Just pointing an LLM at the codebase doesn't work. They had to build Helix, with ordered checkpoints, test proofs, visual diffing, adversarial reviewers, and human gates.
So what they've actually demonstrated is that Shopify has enough engineering resources and agent infrastructure to make maintaining two codebases look economically plausible.
Maybe it is! For Shopify.
That's a much narrower claim than "AI changes the economics of cross-platform development."
And where are the numbers?
For a post about reevaluating costs from first principles, there's remarkably little cost data. Engineer hours? Review time? Defect rates? Parity failures? Agent spend? Ongoing maintenance? Anything?
They even say RN performance isn't the problem. "React Native apps can be fast. Ours are."
So there's no product crisis here. No performance crisis. There's an internal cost argument, with no numbers, being used to justify rewriting five apps used by millions of merchants.
And in isolation I'd probably just shrug and say: Shopify made a bet. Let's see how it goes.
But it's harder to view it entirely in isolation when they brought Tailwind on yesterday too.
Shopify used to be one of the great stewards of the broader ecosystem. What worries me about the recent direction isn't any single technology choice. It's the appearance that, following the recent tech leadership changes, we're starting to see decisions driven more by the preferences of the people now making them than by demonstrated technical merit.
Maybe that's an unfair read. I hope it is. But posts like this don't help, because if you're going to make a sweeping technical argument for a major change, show the evidence.
The part I actually find convincing is much less exciting: Shopify is tired of paying the upstream tax. They've spent years working on RN performance, improving the framework, dealing with dependencies and upgrades, etc.
Fair enough. That's a real cost. Being an RN framework developer or dependent is -- or has been -- awful -- it's like trying to fly a kite in a hurricane. The web team has been super disciplined and also ridiculously slow. The RN team changes apis in .. questionable ways with regards to compatibility
But it's not new, and it has very little to do with LLMs.
And let's not get me started on taking this kind of dependency for your business on companies who still don't have any idea how much to charge for their tools and are all operating (on a per token basis) at a loss. They're swapping some framework dependency for dependency on coding models whose capability, pricing, and terms they don't control.
None of this means they're making the wrong decision. Maybe they're right. Maybe in three years this looks obvious.
But that's exactly the point.
Come back in a year and show me parity bugs, engineering hours per feature, experiment drift, accessibility regressions, review burden, model spend, and how much human work it takes to keep the implementations aligned.
Right now they've shown that AI makes rewrites cheaper.
Agreed, the whole of the Javascript / TypeScript ecosystem has caused a slop hellscape of workarounds, half-backed fixes and have exposed short-comings in the ecosystem.
Perhaps these languages do not work well as they are not designed to run efficiently on mobile devices. Now that we have libraries such as SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose, React Native no longer makes sense to use.
Now we should also move away from Electron to better alternatives such as Kotlin Multi-Platform or fully native libraries on each platform; because of LLMs.
So disagree. The benefits you get from leveraging a framework as as important today as they have ever been -- strong frameworks, fewer tokens, faster progress.
But now that all code is generated, there's little upside to having an RN app... just start native. Your devs are barely going to be writing code anyway.
Sure, you need a review to release native code changes, and you should probably get a review if you have big feature changes just for the sake of Apple not banning you. But in practice, it removes one of the biggest annoyances of developing for the App Store.
React Native's advantage of having a single source of truth for code hasn't quite gone away yet, imo.
link to project: https://github.com/skiptools/skip
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41384144 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46706906
Also, having agents trace and document every logic path to compare with another codebase works well in my experience. It can certainly do that better than me, i would give up and start taking shortcuts pretty early in a process like that.
[0] I always thought the best answer was something like KMM to do all the backend comms and local data model in a shared way, and then a bespoke UI building on what that shared code exposed.
Hi. That’s me… not-great mobile app maker. And yes, I’m grateful that RN exists.
Mostly what it does is make sure that an Android version of things exist at all.
I think people in the tech community have probably also noticed that it's rather popular to have an absolute opinion on the goodness or badness of these tools. There's some magical thinking borne from ignorance that everyone just ought to go native or that React Native is the best thing ever to be used everywhere or that AI makes this line disappear entirely.
I think these takes serve little value and distract from what’s interesting, and what the subtitle to this article says: that this line is moving due to AI. And I think that’s probably right.
It’s actually pretty common for a new company to start fully native (only iOS, few features, limited scope), then switch ro react native/electron (need to support more surfaces, features are being developed too quickly), then back to fully native (can afford individual dev teams for each platform).
Not always, but very often people in the past had good reason for what they did.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Nuance is a thing.
These tools are bad, objectively! They give inferior user experiences, and waste resources (ever more important now with RAM prices what they are).
But that doesn't mean I can't understand or even agree with a company for using them. Building the same native application for more than one platform is expensive and time-consuming. Most of the time I'm happy to prefer an app built with a cross-platform framework vs. not having one at all.
(To be fair, though, if there's a webapp, 90% of the time I'll prefer that over an Electron app. But nothing meets a well-built native app.)
You can say it’s objectively bad from a technical perspective, but clearly that’s only one part of the equation.
That doesn't mean companies should necessarily avoid them. As a user, I always want the best possible user experience, but a company can't prioritize that above all else, and I know that.
Like, it's fine to criticize something, "this component doesn't follow the OS's UI guidelines" or "this scrollbar disappears when the mouse isn't over it which is a bad UX" or whatever, but this generic "oh this is bad but if it was rewritten it would be perfect" is annoying.
What you're seeing is people actually making that case instead of forcing it. They're saying that if the app wouldn't exist without this bad thing, then it is appropriate to compare using the bad thing to doing nothing.
You just seem to be demanding that people not mention other ways to do things, or you'll get angry.
It's subjectively bad because it's an embarrassment. Like you're seriously going to tell me something like Discord, worth 15 BILLION, cannot afford native apps? Spare me.
Like yes, I'd prefer native and MS can certainly afford to take that path, but they can't even be bothered to make sure that most of their Electron apps land on the upper half of the quality spectrum.
In stories like this its much more likely that they just got sick of refactoring a big ugly code base so got buy in to throw it all away and starting over and the justification is native. Wait like 5 years and there will be a new react-native corss platform app because the native apps have too much cruft. Assuming we still have human in the loop then.
Sure, but thats not an interesting observation unless there is something about react-native that makes those apps consistently higher quality than native apps.
On the other hand, like-for-like C/C++/Rust performs better than javascript in terms of CPU and memory use, so the null hypothesis is that re-implementing would , in fact, improve things. There's little reason to think a priori that the end result would somehow be worse.
However, it's now the default for Multiplatform apps that are used constantly, including IDEs, chat apps, etc. They gobble up memory and cpu cycles and are constantly getting updates due to the shitshow that is the javascript dependancy ecosystem.
They can be "bad" in some dimensions (as you mentioned) while being "good" in others (dev productivity).
These frameworks didn't become popular for no reason. They have value. The parts that are "good" can easily outweigh the parts that are "objectively bad" when they enable a smaller team to get things out the door they would have had trouble shipping otherwise.
For an example that I actually have experience with, React very frequently gets criticized for being slow, heavy etc. React is not slow. I can make (have made) fast and snappy websites in react. React can render at more than 60fps if necessary, and if the code isn't shit. The fact that someone else has made a slow buggy mess with React does not prove that react is bad, it simply proves that the developers are bad. At this point, someone will typically interject with something along the lines of "but react makes it hard to make fast websites" and to that I simply say no it doesn't. I've seen what makes react apps slow, and it's generally just bad code. The developers who make shitty react apps would make equally shitty apps with any tool because they're the problem not the tool. They don't know how to build good software and literally no tool can help them because it's simply a matter of understanding programming and the sad fact is most developers suck at programming.
I graduated university with about 200 others and out of those people who have the same degree as I do, very few were even decent at programming. I know that because I was the guy who helped them complete their assignments and I was a TA in several different classes, and I'm telling you the overwhelming majority of students sucked at programming even after 2-3 years of studying it.
After graduating I've worked on many different web apps and other stuff, and I've seen an overwhelming trend of trash code and bad developers. The people who actually care about writing good software and have the mental facilities to do so are few and far between. And that's why most software sucks. A good developer can write good software using pretty much any of the popular tools. The tools are just different ways to do the same stuff. Sure there's some overhead with react etc but it's really not that significant, the significant part is all the trash code people put on top of it.
Sorry, that doesn't really come across as a ringing endorsement. React apps are typically not doing anything complex so rendering at less than 60fps should only happen if you're doing very computationally intensive things or writing bottom-quartile quality code.
We have LLMs.
It's easy to build native everything now without much resource expenditure.
Android will be Kotlin. iOS will be Swift. Desktop and server will be Rust. Web will be TypeScript / React for now, but maybe one day WASM.
LLMs are the target now.
- they follow instructions quite well.
- are tireless at doing mechanical ports between languages and frameworks.
- Can understand a new ecosystem quite well.
Keep in mind, claudecode and the other coding agents were pretty bad until around Jan of this year (2026). So it's only been about 9 months since devs have had decent coding agents and even less time has elapsed since somewhat wide adoption.
we'll know when the next layoffs hit.
For a while it seemed that having deeply held, nuance-free opinions about technologies was a sign of being wise and experienced.
The slightly lighter version of this was having near-absolute convictions but leaving a tiny exception for extreme cases to try to demonstrate that you weren’t being unreasonable.
These would usually follow trends when something would spread like a meme. Recent examples include “Everyone should use SQLite for everything” and the ironically closely related “Just use PostgreSQL for everything”. The typical pseudo-nuance would be “unless you have FAANG scale” to imply that there is no nuance until your user base includes most of the developed world.
this was every DBA in the late 90's and early 2000s when talking about their pet RDBMS. To me, it was a signal to avoid that person unless absolutely necessary.
I try as hard as I can to have strong opinions, loosely held
Is there any major browser now that doesn’t support saving websites as apps? Electron is simply a suboptimal and incorrect way of producing web apps.
Do they leave bad reviews if your app malfunctions due to the system webview behaving differently than the Chromium version you tested with?
Forget about saving websites as apps, no one does that. Not sure if it works on Desktop Safari, it certainly doesn't on iOS Safari. Not even persistent storage is offered for PWAs. Apple likes the billions in AppStore fees they rake in every quarter.
You don't need to argue with me about it: I'm not the average user. But they really do not care at all in most cases.
Haha. I completely replace the software with a non Electron alternative if available.
A one star review, on the other hand, can have a material impact on the search ranking and consequently my revenue.
Electron is way bigger than an app needs to be, of course, but those giant apps that you hate, 250MB just for a health tracker? That's not electron being the problem.
Bruno consumes 300MB in RAM. The alternative I am using consumes 25 MB and it is much faster.
The difference is not because some uncompressed PNG or some fonts, it's the Electron architecture that is wasteful, by design.
Most apps won't need these capabilities to function, but they are there, for all purposes good and bad:
- background activities with fewer restrictions
- less restricted file system and sensor access etc
- ...
sure, many app use this for nefarious things.
But real use cases don't need to be sophisticated rendering algorithms or what not.
I think good streaming apps also use these capabilities, for example, for performance.
I don't want to spend much time on this comment so I risk not making a sufficient point, but something I notice is that you're appraising the situation from a purely technical point of view. The technical component is just one piece of what makes a whole product. I think Apple is probably a good example: they regularly make decisions that bother the hell out of tech-centered minds.
Most likely this will work out fine, but big rewrites like this have a big enough chance of going off the rails that I wouldn't shout success from the rooftops just yet. I'm sure Digg engineering was proud of their rewrite too.
For companies the size of Shopify and Airbnb that makes sense. But that doesn’t mean a small ten person startup should do the same thing.
"The right tool for the job" is too complicated for a lot of people to understand. Tradeoffs? Tradeoffs require understanding.
"XYZ is the best, just use it" is much easier, especially if you don't know how to make decisions and don't really care. Then you defend your non-decision by parroting what you read.
I remember a product manager talking crap about Kafka years ago, and I started digging in as to why he didn't like it, and all of his reasons were marketing FUD from competitors. It was odd, his understanding of it was a Potemkin village.
All tools presumably solve a problem. If you understand that envelope you can figure out if it works for you and your envelope.
Our app is smaller, and has about 15-20 screens. I started at about 12:30am by giving codex a goal and it inventoried every screen based on the react native code, then created android and iOS directories, used maestro (I had already set up this tooling for a previous personal app build a few weeks prior), and had the whole thing working in android and iOS in the morning. Took it about 6 hours while I slept.
The app is way smaller, launches instantly, and the android app is (supposedly) native looking. I say supposedly because I don't use android phones. But it's using Jetpack Compose and Kotlin.
And I don't know Swift or Kotlin. I honestly don't see the point of React Native anymore. I know Expo is doing very cool agentic stuff, but I'm just not sure why I'd need any of it when I can write a native app.
It's a fine project to do but clearly they put zero value on being familiar with the project's codebase/stack and ecosystem, which makes me feel fear in my heart when I imagine the first "production is down" page coming in. I already hated mobile because it's so much harder to maintain than web (and I don't do any spyware or IAP so no benefits for me there); this yolo approach would give me constant dread.
It shows that at least some software development is moving away from code and to product management instead. I'm not passing judgement on that; I actually think that's great for a lot of software. It is interesting to see the shift happening though and will be fun to see if the general quality of software noticeably changes over the next few years.
When you’re completely ignorant, there’s nothing to be afraid of.
But yes we are having real Android users test it.
So it’s quite the contrary. I care MORE what real users say. I can only guarantee that the app does things when I tap. So I’m not trusting the agent on UX, only on functionality. But whether it feels native, I am relying on those users in our team.
As much as I dislike it, I think that's the future of _all_ non-critical software (think social media, crms, CI, food delivery etc). Leadership in many companies is explicitly asking employees to have multiple agents running through the day and that will lead to this.
Read this for example: https://www.uber.com/in/en/blog/efficient-software-factory/ . A very useful system, I am sure. But when you have AI at every layer from code to review to triaging, rest assured AI is the only know who knows your system. And you better hope it's not telling you that something is load bearing during an incident.
But I am going to always prioritize the user experience over a developer (like myself)'s need for satisfaction to see code. And a pure native app is _always_ going to behave better than react native.
This gives me a chance to do that.
Maybe iOS is better about consistency, but I've used enough horribly made Android apps that I would not expect one that's vibe coded to behave better than a professionally made react native version.
Maintainability concerns are entirely overblown by people who don't use agentic AI to develop large mobile apps, but anyway give their opinion as if they had that experience.
I put in a few hundred hours, and I reached the same conclusion as Shopify. With reviews from other models and then a manual QA pass the result is fully usable.
Most of the time when I review code from AI, there is always something to improve.
It’s either a maintenance issue. e.g., Opus recommended and implemented a fix for a database corruption crash. This was ~400 lines of code with many moving parts. I reviewed, and found out Android Room library already handles this recovery case, and all I needed was a 10 liner PR that catches this exception and ignores it.
The maintenance is not only the burden on the human and LLM. With too many moving parts, it becomes harder and harder to build and verify the correctness of future features. Yes you can write test for this and that, but it didn’t need to exist in the first place.
The second problem is correctness issues. Especially the edge cases. You cannot just manually test out a race condition on a phone! Sometimes it happens! Sometimes it doesn’t! If it leads to a visible signal like a crash, then yes, you can try to reproduce it. But there are a lot of these that are “silent” and would just lead to bad experiences.
We already had a software quality crisis! And I think such views only exacerbate the situation! Quality matters!
And this is not an anti-AI stance. I vibe code personal projects where I don’t even look at the code. But when I use AI as a professional engineer, I act like a professional. Because these products do have an impact on people’s lives.
I also used to work full time as a Android developer for five years, and I'm pretty sure I know better than you about the quality of my app that I work on everyday.
Some people on the cybersecurity side are starting to cry....
2. Wild use of webviews/iframes sometimes easily propagates as XSS in phones
3. Incorrect client-side OAuth 2.0 configuration e.g. with schema-based redirect URLs.
4. Not supporting high-enough API versions, which may prevent some OS-related weaknesses
5. The list is actually very long. Just few top of my mind.
Last time, when I pointed out that the attack surface for mobile apps is typically very small, some users started to talk about zero day vulnerabilities in the OS's media handling, as if it was a concern for my app implementation.
I found the concerns again wildly overblown.
OP says they don't have an android phone...
I'd order a cheap Android phone to have a device in hand instead of working only with the simulator.
Can you share some details of how you work? What models? What harness?
I don't know if Gemini is suitable.
I had few issues with my native iOS app, the results are just decent after a few iterations, the models do what I ask them to do. Where do you see the problem?
The LOC for my app is now at almost 200k + 110k lines of test code.
That‘s how you check functionality but that’s not how you get the bugs in the code.
That’s like translating a text to another language without knowing the language
Myself turned some python code to Swift, and keep doing so, without trouble or pressure. Of course, I've been doing fair amount of systems programming for 20 years now, so not sure what to advice newcomers. But this approach to dev DOES work for me very well.
They had previously chosen React Native because it was easier for programmers to keep it updated, since it was really just 1 codebase. With AI, those same programmers can do the more difficult version, keeping the native apps updated separately.
So did it kill a job, or did it make it possible for the existing programmers to do it better?
It's the kind of thing that is really hard to determine in general, but here, it really does sound like they only made the change because it became possible with existing resources. They would not have done it otherwise.
Sounds like you agree
The parent's point is that AI lowers the cost/benefit ratio drastically, by reducing the cost. So companies that would have shied away from projects like this pre-AI are now pulling the trigger without much hesitation.
Just like this has made Web devs into Mobile devs, so could Mobile devs leverage AI to work in Web shops.
I'm not an optimist but there could be an increase of available apps being created which would still keep people employed. Theoretically the cost of creating an iOS app for a company without an engineering team dropped from several hundreds of thousand to a few thousand or hundreds, which could be paid out to a freelancer with AI. More people would go into freelancing for industries which were not contemplated before due to cost.
But I'm not an optimist.
We all want super exciting jobs. But plenty have boring jobs like this. Between not having a job or having a boring job that pays well, the choice is obvious for many of us.
I think that rewrite - if AI enabled - owes its thanks to the legion of individuals who put their code up on the internet in the first place.
Weird times.
Seems similar to eminent domain, but without limitations.
Not anymore.
What does your app do?
They don’t care about your code. There’s more and better data on the public web.
Also what's the timing on this setting's effectiveness? What if before you knew to "opt out" you used the agent for a refactor and your entire repo got sucked up in inference? But then you opt out the next day? Is it too late?
If a company really believed there’s valuable IP in code, there would at a minimum, ban laptops or ban code on laptops[0], provide and maintain a centrally managed LLM gateway[1] that handles authentication, billing and model choice, have MDM to prevent you from using your own Claude login, etc.
[0]: For example when I worked at Google, the proprietary google3 codebase cannot exist on laptops because there are no tools to download it to your laptop.
[1]: For example Claude code supports having a gateway: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/llm-gateway-connect
And there are solutions around it from other providers and model routers. OpenRouter lets you explicitly say on a per-request basis you don’t want to be routed to a provider that trains on your input, for example.
For most app that concept is "gone".
People routinely decompile and recompose existing binaries, and if you use "obfuscation" in your app it's still a small bump.
In today's age, IP is no longer a tangible concept that gives any advantages in software. What differentiates two businesses isn't their IP, it's their relationships and their moat.
Most vendors that had protected proprietary IP are now irrelevant within their vertical. What saves them are the protection provided by patents, which is public.
What we found led us back to native.
That said, the massive downsides to native are:
- App Store Review time, this used to be hours to 1-2 days, now it can take a week or more
- In the same vein, you can do updates without waiting on native when using web technologies to build your app. We can go from a bug in the field to a fix in <1hr easy. Try doing that with a native app
- Cross-platform, yes LLMs mean you can create a native iOS and Android app but you have to keep those in sync to say nothing of web (if you want to offer a web app as well)
- Like the point above: Web, if you want to support web, why not get the other platform for cheaper (shared logic)
Yes, for a while they were doing very well and I even once had an app reviewed in <1hr but the average has been creeping up. LLM/Vibe coding is what is often blamed for this increase though at the end of the day it's Apple's problem/fault for not staffing the review department better.
I just ran an analysis of my apps and the fastest was 8hrs (June 20th) but since then it's been trending upwards with my last 3 updates coming in at 40hrs, 67hrs, and 98hrs. These are all my apps, the company I work for has at least 2 recent updates that took over a week. That's just absurd.
If the App Store can commit to 24hrs being the max time then maybe I'd be interested but for the foreseeable future I'll "Settle" for instant updates when I have a fix ready instead of waiting on Apple. Especially with how random approvals are (not just the time, the approval itself), I'll ship a tiny fix and App Review will kick it back for some native API I've been using since version 1 that they now want more info about. I don't fancy having my businesses at the whim of Apple Review.
Just this week I've had an app stay for 9 days in review and another one for 8 hours. Same dev account, same niche.
KMP can be seen as a token optimization at this point. Business logic is shared and doesn't have to be rewritten in Swift.
There are cons to targetting web/PWA too. Push notifications work but Safari on iOS only allows them if the user adds your website to their home screen. It also doesn't support prompting the user to install the PWA so you have to instruct your users to tap the Share button, tap View more, and then tap Add to Home Screen. And as soon as they tap the Share button the menu opens on top of your instructions so they need to remember the steps to continue. It's hard to defend this behavior because the user will still need to allow notification permission when they open your PWA from their home screen. It's an unnecessary hurdle.
Apple may not trumpet it as loudly, but these freebies are handed out in UIKit too, for cases where declarative UI is cumbersome.
Generally I've found that while SwiftUI is great for little self-contained bits of UI like table/collection view cells and simplistic template-like apps, it tends to become a bear with complex apps, so it's nice to have both options.
Edit: was going to update the earlier comment but just hit the 2 hr mark.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49645559
It's better to find out quickly if you can get traction rather than building something requiring more maintenance. For most bug fixes or enhancements, you make them in the Jumpstart Rails side and they should up instantly in the mobile apps without going through app review again! Most projects are not being built in companies the size of Shopify, so I caution anyone who wants to just get the project out there to use platforms that give them more leverage. And no, I'm still not a fan of low-code or no-code, because I know what it's like to have to maintain apps over many years.
Oh, and I still always warn clients to stay away from native mobile unless they absolutely need it, because even with AI, maintaining just a web app is still light years faster, and far more pleasant. I know from very, very, very recent experience that testing subscriptions is still annoyingly cumbersome in the flaky Apple and Google sandbox environments, and Stripe for web apps is night and day easier to test. Testing on mobile is better than it used to be, but sometimes when I'm waiting for builds onto a physical device or for confusing settings in App Store Connect or Google Play Console to take effect (or just fine where they've been moved to), I think about how a manager 20 years ago was telling me how slowly his development lifecycle was when he used to burn software onto ROM chips. So web is still the way to go, and native mobile only if you absolutely have to. And if you have tons of time or money, sure, start with plain native.
Edit: As a web developer for decades, I still find both Jumpstart iOS/Android and Flutter to be preferable to React Native.
The vastly undersold topic to all of these is how many developers do you have?
We have the option of using flutter, or not launching an app at all. The concept of going full native is a non-starter.
I basically could not care what Shopify is doing because they have hundreds or thousands of people.
Also, any plans to open source Helix?
So it goes.
Teams jump on the latest cross-platform framework assuming that it will reduce headcount cost at the expense of having a lowest-common denominator app on each platform.
The latter is true but the former is false.
What ends up happening is that teams start as 20 iOS engineers & 20 Android engineers. They adopt something like React Native. Then you end up with a team of 20 product engineers and 20 tooling and framework engineers.
I've seen that countless times in the last two decades.
I'm currently maintaining versions for both iOS and Android.
The debate has been taking place on the actual street?
I've written up a load of thoughts about that here[1], but in summary for the Shopify case, they're basically going to be spending a ton more than they have to by switching back to multiple apps and I'd predict another swing back to better cross-platform tooling in the coming years.
[1]: https://nativephp.com/blog/why-not-write-it-twice
A ton more what? Money? AI costs are insignificant to a company like Spotify. Hell I've been using Astra fairly extensively at work and I've only racked up like $500 in the last month. Peanuts.
I say this because I was part of a migration from a mid-size React Native app to a Swift/Kotlin native app redo. I did the majority of the technical work on it. The majority of the work occurred before January 2026 and without LLM code assistance, though later features in the app definitely used some.
For anyone considering this, I'd say that the migration is definitely worth considering without even taking LLM assistance into consideration. The continued React Native tax of unnecessarily difficult upgrades, impedance mismatch w/ underlying core frameworks, and incredibly uneven library quality just cause your business to really spend a lot of time shepherding the tech over the finish line. It's pretty wonderful to be back in the world of "build, compile, ship, be sure". One thing as a fundamental principle that I think the Shopify article 'gets' at, is the importance of the feedback cycle - investing time in our integration test story very early on both helped w/ my cycle times, and later in providing guardrails for LLM assistance.
All to say that this decision is worth considering without even taking LLM assistance into account.
> When simulator interaction is needed, the CLI can connect to them via a remote mode and drive the UI via commands without having to inspect the layout or the accessibility tree. This enables blazing-fast performance and E2E tests.
I think I'm not following. Don't you still need to test the accessibility tree and layout in the actual layer the user will interact with?
I am still mourning pre-React GitHub. Maybe rose-tinted glasses, but it was so pleasant to use
For example https://diffs.com/ is built in React and it's basically instant.
If the entire page is rendered on the server, the information required to do so is presumably reasonably approximate (same datacenter). If most of the page is rendered on the client, the information needs to be pulled in from arbitrary physical distances.
At some point the engineering really is this simple.
"Oh no, we can't possibly do the computation of all that on our backend! Yikes! Let that run on every single client instead! Let users spend their own compute over and over."
culture.
https://github.com/pierrecomputer/pierre/blob/main/packages/...
... albeit using React inspired terminology like props and hydration.
That said I did happen to work with a team in ‘21 - ‘22 that got access to an older coding model from OpenAI, also called Codex, through a corporate partnership. We also tested it out in an autocomplete UX. Our experience was rather hit-or-miss and I was a bit skeptical of AI-based coding at the time. That blog post above and others like it were an eye-opener and made me wonder if we were just “holding it wrong.”
Then ChatGPT was released. It was nowhere as good as the models today but it could write reams and reams of correct code and I realized the world had changed forever.
I mean, it's not impossible - I wrote a "coding agent" with GPT-3. It sucked balls. The idea was you write a Markdown spec file and the tool then compiled it to an equivalent source code one shotting it every time, but it hardly worked at all. The file changed too much every time and instruction following wasn't good enough, so it'd keep changing the interface exported by the file, and there were lots of bugs etc.
> Shopify has been using LLMs to build software since 2021
GitHub Copilot integrated into VS Code started becoming available that year. It’s definitely not a coding agent, but it was certainly LLM-assisted programming.
I also believed that finally this year react native got mature enough with improved tooling and performance to the point that it started to being 'boring' technology.
> Dramatically reduced the cost of maintaining parity between platforms through shared specifications, tests, and review checkpoints
I've used Kotlin Multiplatform on a mobile project built back before AI coding took off, and it was super nice to have shared core logic between the apps and there weren't really any downsides on the Android side, but on the iOS side it was definitely an extra layer that didn't feel fully native.
At work, we use react native, and although the upgrades and stuff are painful, I'd never give up the ability to ship over the air updates.
For a while I've been wondering why people are even bothering with high level languages if you aren't even gonna read the code.
Who wants to bet there still won't be a dark mode?
The native apps will definitely be better in terms of performance and UX. However, having 2 codebases means twice the tokens.
That was my thought when I saw the headline and then reading the article confirms this is the inflection point per their own words. Very interesting.
oh yeah, disclaimer: I write UI frameworks and dabble in PLs.
Is that something we should be engineering for right now?
It also depends on features. Many apps don't rely on platform features (widgets, watch apps) and are essentially webviews, and those will continue to do just fine on RN.
We have small shims for IOS or Android BLE. But otherwise the discussion of should you go native is really a discussion of how many employees do you have to throw with this?
follow up with some more technical details and benchmarks
Write once, deploy everywhere like React Native mainly benefits small teams and startups who are okay with building 90/10 solutions.
At the shopify's scale, they would want to go advance for every corner of the apps and use cases, and only native allows that.
And, honestly, the cost of tracking React over time has always been higher than the cost of tracking native deployment options, which move more slowly and usually with more care than React, where breaking backward compatibility is just another Tuesday. I don't think the promise of React Native being an almost-free "native" app actually pans out in reality. I've never maintained a large React Native app, but from following some apps that are, it seems like it introduces a sizable amount of technical debt that you pay over time. So, in exchange for worse software you also get worse maintenance costs.
The meta point of the article, I agree with though. The line is moving and AI makes having multiple platforms with code specific to them faster. Getting them right is still difficult.
Companies can now just afford to maintain a hundred different native apps, rather than settle for a write once, run anywhere approach.
Interestingly Apple approved it very quickly, which I was afraid of given such a huge rewrite.
I've always been wary of React Native, because my impression is that it hides nuances of the underlying framework. You may be fine implementing 90% of your app but then need that last 10% and may get stuck.
But then I'm also wary of the recent trend by Google to create higher level frameworks on top of native Android APIs. It seems that these days for every Android API family, there is a Google framework that gives you a higher level API. I don't really understand it - is Google admitting that the quality of native Android APIs has eroded? Do they think developers are too inexperienced to deal with native Android APIs?
I'm also not sure I understand the how reasonably large companies consider two native apps to be too expensive. A startup may have a hard time funding both and may need to choose, but an established business should consider not only costs but also the better quality of user experience that native apps provide - that has to count for something.
The most advanced in this area may well be websites and into those decades of work of thousands of engineers went (HTML, CSS and JS standards).
And, in all honesty, the difficult part with many projects is the bootstrap, the scaffolding, not the continuous dev. Agentic dev. made this a piece of cake.
Who has more people/resources to justifiably throw at their native app than Shopify? Maybe a dozen companies?
With cheap/fast code, it's easy to support multiple software stacks since most of the abstract engineering problems are already solved.
Code - especially straightforward low-level code - is so cheap and easy to write now that some people are building their own version control systems, game engines, and other low-level tooling.
Thus, some of the most demanding, human-centric work in software dev right now - where we now spend more time than coding - is in technical PM, UI/UX, devops, and overall architecture. The decision-making and design aspects of the job.
Exciting times.
React Native gives you (with asterisks) - one "source" for things to go wrong (as it sits on top of the native implementations of the UI + Native APIs). You are writing at that source level, and that filters down to the native builds. I am WELL aware to do certain things on each platform you need to get your hands dirty, but most apps are just serialising JSON from a database and displaying it.
AI writes very buggy, sloppy code.
They've decided - instead of containing that code to 1 surface, they would now have 2 surfaces they throw slop on top of.
I look forward to the 2027 version of this where they've gone back
Maybe React Native isn't the right choice - but two tech stacks for virtually identical interfaces is dumb. Three stacks if you include browsers.
“To solve this problem, we built a system called Helix that takes a more gradual approach. It doesn't expect the first output to be correct, and builds a loop where an imperfect attempt simply cannot move forward until it becomes a good result.”
If this is driven by proper engineering then hats off! Supposedly a simpler app has already been migrated and they are working on migrating the main app using this approach. I don’t even know how I can be a cynic here… because the technology is good enough and so are the engineers I don’t know how management or executives could ruin it.
“…product quality people expect today. This isn’t just the same apps rewritten in different languages. We’re rebuilding them so both humans and agents can understand, test, and change them quickly.”
If this was written using AI and human-edited, you missed a spot.
Then they say:
> We decided to switch from native to React Native in 2020 for three reasons:
> Stop building the same features twice
> Allow developers to work across the stack
> Spend less time chasing feature parity and more time shipping value
Totally!
Is there some kind of shame in just saying:
- we didn't want to hire more people
- we didn't want to pay those salaries
- we fired a lot of engineers with move to react native/hybrid in mind
- we could reuse the frontend devs (aka "full stack" folks) with or without some extra whippings ensuring they grok the bare minimum they'd need to build for mobile and test in on mobile.
LLMs change the tradeoff and organizations would be remiss to not reconsider previous decisions.
Hermes VM doesn't even have JIT.
If the majority of your app is native code and only a few places are stitched together via JS code that runs in the Hermes VM, then React Native is suitable for you.
Look at V8 vs. Hermes performance.
We use Flutter; we rarely need to write native code. We have three apps: Symbiote workout app, CalorieCodex, an AI calorie tracker app, and MacroCodex with 17,000+ users, all of them completely free
It sounds pretty solid, so I wouldn't expect anything to change in just 6 months.
Like wouldn’t you want to invest in platform specific expertise long term?
It’s not like this is a small company or it’s just a dinky side project off of the main business
> Coding agents changed what it costs to build mobile apps twice. Here’s why Shopify is moving from React Native back to Swift and Kotlin.
they are going to "delete an app" because they got some LLM to slop out 2 apps?
The architect who wrote that is batshit and will be unemployed after this blows up in his face.
Sounds like a complete waste of tokens with the worst case of just quickly building more technical debt, three times.
One of the big rules is don't repeat yourself – much of the logic only needs to be written once (except UI)
Kotlin is already multi-platform and can be re-used as the business logic in iOS apps with Swift as the UI and the Android app with a Kotlin UI (Jetpack Compose) or both iOS and Android apps can be written entirely in Kotlin.
That vastly reduces the maintenance and Kotlin is reused across all apps and keeps it at 2 languages at most.
No need to introduce Rust to achieve the same goal.
So... local maxima?
Talk to me in a year.
The side-by-side comparisons? Whoopty do. It's different code. Of course agents can produce two implementations that look the same today. That's not the hard part.
The hard part is keeping them the same.
Feature parity isn't an implementation cost. It's a divergence cost. It accrues over years across experiments, analytics, accessibility, edge cases, bug fixes, platform behavior, and a thousand little decisions which current agents aren't great at tracking.
Agents can write code fast but they aren't a panacea.
The load-bearing sentence in the whole post is this:
"Shared specifications, tests, and review checkpoints dramatically reduced the cost of maintaining parity."
Okay. For how long? By how much? Got any numbers to share? How will these hold up under contact with customer?
You haven't maintained parity yet. You've built prototypes. You're making a claim about a cost that compounds over time based on what it costs at t=0.
The other thing missing is the counterfactual. They keep comparing this rewrite to what a rewrite would have cost before coding agents. But what if you point those same agents at the existing RN codebase?
If agents make software development cheaper, they make RN development cheaper too. And now you're modifying one implementation instead of generating, testing, reviewing, and reconciling two.
The tooling section makes this even stranger. They find that agents are bad at driving simulators, so they pull business logic out of the UI, make it runnable headlessly, and expose a CLI.
That's a good idea! Do that!
But that's an architecture change, not an argument for native. You can make an RN codebase agent-friendly without rewriting five apps.
Then you get to "Preventing slop," which is probably the most important section in the post. Just pointing an LLM at the codebase doesn't work. They had to build Helix, with ordered checkpoints, test proofs, visual diffing, adversarial reviewers, and human gates.
So what they've actually demonstrated is that Shopify has enough engineering resources and agent infrastructure to make maintaining two codebases look economically plausible.
Maybe it is! For Shopify.
That's a much narrower claim than "AI changes the economics of cross-platform development."
And where are the numbers?
For a post about reevaluating costs from first principles, there's remarkably little cost data. Engineer hours? Review time? Defect rates? Parity failures? Agent spend? Ongoing maintenance? Anything?
They even say RN performance isn't the problem. "React Native apps can be fast. Ours are."
So there's no product crisis here. No performance crisis. There's an internal cost argument, with no numbers, being used to justify rewriting five apps used by millions of merchants.
And in isolation I'd probably just shrug and say: Shopify made a bet. Let's see how it goes.
But it's harder to view it entirely in isolation when they brought Tailwind on yesterday too.
Shopify used to be one of the great stewards of the broader ecosystem. What worries me about the recent direction isn't any single technology choice. It's the appearance that, following the recent tech leadership changes, we're starting to see decisions driven more by the preferences of the people now making them than by demonstrated technical merit.
Maybe that's an unfair read. I hope it is. But posts like this don't help, because if you're going to make a sweeping technical argument for a major change, show the evidence.
The part I actually find convincing is much less exciting: Shopify is tired of paying the upstream tax. They've spent years working on RN performance, improving the framework, dealing with dependencies and upgrades, etc.
Fair enough. That's a real cost. Being an RN framework developer or dependent is -- or has been -- awful -- it's like trying to fly a kite in a hurricane. The web team has been super disciplined and also ridiculously slow. The RN team changes apis in .. questionable ways with regards to compatibility
But it's not new, and it has very little to do with LLMs.
And let's not get me started on taking this kind of dependency for your business on companies who still don't have any idea how much to charge for their tools and are all operating (on a per token basis) at a loss. They're swapping some framework dependency for dependency on coding models whose capability, pricing, and terms they don't control.
None of this means they're making the wrong decision. Maybe they're right. Maybe in three years this looks obvious.
But that's exactly the point.
Come back in a year and show me parity bugs, engineering hours per feature, experiment drift, accessibility regressions, review burden, model spend, and how much human work it takes to keep the implementations aligned.
Right now they've shown that AI makes rewrites cheaper.
Whoopty do.
Perhaps these languages do not work well as they are not designed to run efficiently on mobile devices. Now that we have libraries such as SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose, React Native no longer makes sense to use.
Now we should also move away from Electron to better alternatives such as Kotlin Multi-Platform or fully native libraries on each platform; because of LLMs.