S O F T C R A F T Y

Loading

Contact Info

Get A Quote

Tag: StartupTips

Scaling SaaS Architecture: When to Move From Monolith to Microservices

Posted on by wecraft

Monolithic architectures work for early-stage SaaS but crumble under growth. A client’s Django monolith couldn’t handle 500 concurrent users—API response times spiked to 8+ seconds. We migrated critical functions (payments, analytics) to microservices, reducing latency to <400ms at 10K users. The tipping point? When:

  1. Team size exceeds 10+ developers (merge conflicts skyrocket)
  2. Features require conflicting dependencies
  3. Components need independent scaling
    Start small: break off one high-traffic service (like auth) using Kubernetes or AWS Lambda. We helped a CI/CD tool decouple its test runner first, enabling 5X faster build processing without a full rewrite.

Microservices aren’t free—they introduce complexity. Each service needs its own database, monitoring, and deployment pipeline. We use Docker containers and Terraform for infrastructure-as-code to manage this. A common mistake: over-segmenting too early. One client split their app into 30+ microservices pre-maturely, exploding DevOps costs. Instead, adopt a modular monolith first—separate codebases with clear boundaries but shared deployment. Transition gradually as scale demands. Tools like Kong or Istio help manage service meshes. Remember: the goal isn’t “microservices” but independent scalability. Sometimes, a well-optimized monolith with caching (Redis) and read replicas suffices for years.

Database choices make or break scalability. Postgres works for 90% of SaaS startups, but sharding becomes essential at 1M+ users. We helped a fintech app partition data by region, improving query speeds by 300%. Consider serverless databases (Firestore, DynamoDB) for unpredictable workloads. Event-driven architectures (using Kafka or AWS SQS) also help—a logistics SaaS processed 50K+ daily webhooks reliably by queuing them. The key is planning ahead: document service boundaries, standardize APIs (GraphQL or REST), and implement feature flags for gradual rollouts. Scalability isn’t an afterthought; it’s baked into initial architecture decisions.

Native vs. Hybrid Apps: Which is Right for Your Business?

Posted on by wecraft

Choosing between native and hybrid apps impacts performance, cost, and user experience. Native apps (built separately for iOS and Android) offer superior speed and hardware integration, making them ideal for graphics-heavy apps or those needing advanced features like AR. However, they require higher budgets and longer development cycles. Hybrid apps (using frameworks like Flutter or React Native) share 80-90% of code across platforms, reducing costs and time-to-market. For a food delivery startup, we built a hybrid app in 10 weeks (vs. 16+ for native), helping them launch before a critical holiday season.

Performance gaps between native and hybrid are narrowing. Modern tools like Flutter compile to near-native speeds, and strategic optimizations (e.g., native modules for complex features) bridge remaining gaps. We helped a fitness app achieve 60 FPS animations in hybrid by offloading intensive calculations to platform-specific code. The key is auditing your must-have features first. If your app needs Bluetooth low energy or real-time 3D rendering, go native. For most business apps (e-commerce, social platforms), hybrid delivers 95% of the experience at half the cost. Our technical review process identifies the right approach for your goals and budget.

There’s no ‘best’ app type—only the best fit for your users.

Maintenance is another critical factor. Native apps demand separate updates for iOS and Android, while hybrid allows simultaneous releases—a huge advantage for businesses needing consistent features. We implement CI/CD pipelines to automate testing and deployments across platforms. For a healthcare client with compliance-driven updates, hybrid ensured identical security patches reached all users instantly. The bottom line? There’s no universal “best” choice. We guide clients based on their priorities: raw performance (native) or cost-efficient agility (hybrid). Sometimes, a mixed approach (hybrid core + native modules for key features) strikes the perfect balance.