Same story every time someone explains why they picked Expo: one team, one codebase, ship to both platforms at once. Fine pitch. Not wrong exactly. Just not the part that matters once the app is live and something breaks, which it will. Launch day isn't the real test. The real test comes later. A bug slips through, users are already stuck running the broken version, and a founder is now scrambling. Usually it plays out like this: the bug gets found, someone fixes it within the hour, and the fix just... sits there. Apple's review queue takes two to three days, and nothing changes for users until that clock runs out. Meanwhile every phone that already has the app keeps running the broken version. EAS Update skips all of that for JavaScript changes. The fix goes straight to installed apps, no queue, no waiting on approval. A problem that used to eat three days now gets resolved before half the team even hears about it. This isn't a beginner tool teams outgrow. Coinbase runs on this exact setup at massive scale. Bluesky leaned on the same update path through a stretch of explosive growth. A major fast-food chain pushes menu and pricing changes to millions of phones through this same channel, no app store trip required. There's a real catch worth knowing. An update only lands safely if the app's existing native code matches what the update expects. Get that wrong and a device can crash on open. Get it right and this holds up cleanly at scale. Comparing Expo to a native build usually stops at development speed. Push it further. Real users don't care how clean the codebase is, only whether it works right now. Turning a production bug into a five-minute fix instead of a three-day wait changes what a bad week actually costs the business. Bitcot's full guide on Expo for startups: https://www.bitcot.com/expo-for-startups/