Every question, one page.

One call, no discovery theatre. Most engagements meet the proposed engineers within the same week and open with a two-week trial either side can walk away from.

Yes, always. The code, the repository and the IP are yours on every engagement shape — bench seat, fixed batch or retainer.

Bench seats resize with a month's notice. Fixed batches are staged against working software, not a fixed headcount, so scope can flex between stages.

We're remote-first and work with clients across India, Europe, North America and Southeast Asia. Overlap hours are agreed up front, not assumed.

Depends on the app. Flutter gets you to both stores from one codebase and is our default for most product work — it's what our own senior mobile hires are chosen for. Native makes sense when you need deep platform-specific integration or performance a cross-platform layer would get in the way of. We'll give you a straight answer for your specific case on the call, not a default answer to every case.

Yes — most engagements start inside an existing repo, not a blank one. The two-week trial exists partly for this: enough time for an engineer to get useful in your codebase and for both sides to confirm the fit before committing further.

Yes, on Build engagements — we've done it for our own two apps, so the review-cycle quirks (screenshots, privacy labels, rejection reasons) aren't a first-time experience for us on your app either.

Node and Postgres most often — it's the combination our backend hires are evaluated against — but engineers join whatever stack your service already runs rather than pushing a rewrite. Tell us your stack on the call and we'll tell you honestly whether it's a fit.

Both, depending on the engagement. Contract seats work inside specs your team owns; Consult engagements start with us reviewing or designing the schema and API surface first, with trade-offs written down, not just decided in a meeting no one wrote up.

Yes — that's a common reason teams reach for a contract seat rather than a full hire. The two-week trial still applies; it's short enough not to slow down something urgent.

Start with the audit (Consult engagement). It's a fixed, short piece of work that ends with a written plan naming what's actually broken and what it would take to fix — you can act on it yourself, hire for it, or bring us in for the fix. No pressure to convert it into a retainer.

Yes — a contract seat can do either, or both. Some clients want the pipeline built once and handed over; others want an engineer who stays on for the operational load after.

AWS, GCP and Azure. We work inside whatever you're already running rather than defaulting to one.

Both, and the mix depends on where you are. Automation pays off on stable, repeated paths; manual testing is still where the judgment calls and edge cases get caught, especially on newer features. We'll size the mix to your actual release cadence rather than assume one.

Yes — that's the most common way this starts. A short ramp-up to learn the product, then straight into the release cycle, on the same two-week trial as any other seat.

Both. Given how much of our own work is mobile-first (two apps live in both stores), our QA practice leans mobile-heavy, but the same engineers cover web equally.

Adding a GenAI feature to an existing product, building a new AI-native product end to end, or advising on model/architecture choices before you commit engineering time. SaiyamAI — our own screen-time app with a GenAI conversational core — is the proof this isn't theoretical for us.

Almost always the former — a well-chosen third-party API gets most products to a better outcome faster and cheaper than a custom-trained model, and we'll tell you plainly if your use case is the exception rather than default to the bigger, more billable build.

As a design decision made up front, not a compliance afterthought. Our own product's approach — collecting nothing it doesn't need — reflects how we'd default on client work too: minimise what's logged or sent to a third-party model, and say clearly what does leave the device when something must.

Both are available. Some clients want design-only work that their own engineers implement; others want the full Build shape — design straight through to release, same team the whole way, so nothing gets lost in handoff.

One call to understand the problem, then two-week sprints with something reviewable each cycle — the same cadence as our engineering engagements, not a separate design-only process with its own slower rhythm.

Yes, and that's usually the better call — a focused redesign of the flow that's actually underperforming, rather than a ground-up relaunch that risks breaking what already works.

No — most of the work is on products that already exist and already have users. New-launch support is available too, but retention and store-presence work on a live product is at least as common a fit.

Either. A monthly contract seat suits ongoing growth work; a scoped project (a store-listing overhaul, a retention audit) suits a narrower, time-boxed need. Both carry the same two-week trial.

Your existing product, most of the time. Growth work on something already live and already has traffic to learn from tends to move faster than growth work on something hypothetical.

You meet the specific engineers proposed for your team — by name, with their actual work — before anything is signed, and you can start winding down with a month's notice rather than being locked into an annual contract. The code and IP are yours from day one.

One call, no discovery theatre. Most engagements meet the proposed engineers within the same week and open with the two-week trial.

The two-week trial exists exactly for this — either side can walk away inside it, no hard feelings, no penalty. After that, the monthly term means a seat can still be resized or ended with a month's notice.

It's staged in two-week sprints against working software, so the honest answer depends on scope rather than a fixed number we'd otherwise be tempted to round down. You get that number in writing, specific to your scope, after the first call — not a generic industry estimate.

Yes, always — code, repository and IP are yours on every engagement shape, MVP builds included. Keys and notes are handed over at the end whether or not you keep working with us afterward.

It usually does, at least a little — that's normal once real screens exist. Because the batch is staged in two-week increments against working software, a scope change is a conversation about the next stage, not a renegotiation of a fixed contract signed months earlier.