EasyWork HRMS
Attendance, payroll and leave platform with role-based access, where capture has to keep working regardless of connectivity.
Visit siteServing the United Kingdom
EasyWork Solutions builds mobile applications for UK companies from Surat, India. Alongside the store constraints every app faces, UK projects carry a requirement that catches people out: if under-18s are likely to use your service, the Children's Code applies — and it applies more broadly than most businesses assume.
Mobile app development for UK businesses must account for the Age Appropriate Design Code, which applies to online services likely to be accessed by under-18s and requires high privacy defaults, data minimisation and restraint in engagement techniques. It also means handling app store policy at design stage rather than discovering it at submission.
The Age Appropriate Design Code governs online services likely to be accessed by children, and the phrase doing the work is "likely to be accessed" rather than "aimed at". A service does not have to target under-18s to fall within scope; it has to be one they plausibly use. That captures a great many general-audience apps whose owners have never considered the question.
Where it applies, the requirements are substantive rather than cosmetic. Privacy settings must default to high rather than being available in a menu. Data collection must be limited to what is genuinely needed for the service the child is using. Profiling should be off by default. Geolocation should not be on by default and should be visibly indicated when active. And techniques designed to extend engagement — streaks, pressure to continue, autoplay — are explicitly discouraged.
These reach product design rather than legal wording, which is why they need raising at the start. An app built around engagement mechanics and permissive defaults, then found to be in scope, has a product problem rather than a documentation problem.
The obvious response to the Children's Code is to establish users' ages, and the obvious implementation is to ask for a date of birth. That is worth thinking about carefully, because a self-declared date of birth is both unreliable and a new piece of personal data you now hold about everyone.
The proportionate approach depends on risk. For a low-risk service, applying the code's protections to all users by default can be simpler, cheaper and better than building age verification — you avoid collecting anything additional and you avoid the awkward cases entirely.
For higher-risk services, more robust assurance may be warranted, and that is a decision to take with your adviser rather than a default to implement. What we would avoid is the middle position that catches many products: collecting dates of birth that nobody verifies, which provides negligible assurance while adding a data protection obligation and a field users lie in.
Every app project has a gatekeeper with opinions and no interest in your launch date. App review rejects builds for reasons that frequently have nothing to do with whether the software works — an unclear privacy disclosure, a sign-in flow missing a required option, subscription terms not presented in the required format, or functionality judged too thin to justify being an app.
The expensive version of this is meeting it at submission, when your launch has already been communicated to customers. The inexpensive version is treating the guidelines as design inputs, which costs almost nothing during design.
So we handle these as scope items: in-app account deletion where accounts exist, sign-in options that satisfy the rules, subscription presentation in the required format, and privacy disclosures prepared alongside the build against an inventory of what the app and its SDKs actually collect — rather than completed hurriedly on submission day.
A meaningful proportion of UK app enquiries we receive describe something that would work better as a website or a progressive web app, and we would rather say so before building than after.
An app earns its place when you need genuine offline capability, device features such as the camera or background location, push notifications that matter, or truly repeat usage — a tool staff open several times a day, or a service customers use weekly. It does not earn its place for a task customers perform twice a year, where the install friction alone will cost you most of the audience.
The ongoing commitment is the other half of that decision. Both platforms ship annual OS releases that deprecate APIs and change conventions, SDKs need updating, and store policies change. An unmaintained app degrades and can eventually be removed. For a business without appetite for that cadence, a progressive web app delivers much of the benefit without the maintenance obligation or the store relationship.
App projects generate more small decisions than web projects — what happens on this permission denial, what this empty state says, how this error recovers — and those decisions are where a large time gap costs the most, because each one can stall a screen.
The four-hour UK overlap is genuinely valuable here. A question raised in your morning is answered the same morning, so a design ambiguity costs a conversation rather than a day. That is why we hold a standing daily slot on app work specifically, rather than the weekly cadence that suits a well-specified web build.
We also keep a written decision log with recommended defaults, so anything raised outside the window has a documented answer to proceed on. The combination means the number of open questions never accumulates, which on app projects is what separates a build that ships on time from one that does not.
We do not publish a price list, because a number given before understanding the work is a guess someone pays for later. These are the factors that actually move the figure in this market.
It changes defaults, data collection and engagement design rather than adding a policy page, so establishing scope early avoids building a product that then has to be reworked.
One codebase across both platforms costs roughly one build. Two native builds cost close to double and are justified only where platform-specific depth genuinely earns it.
Online-only is materially cheaper. Local capture with reliable sync and conflict handling is real engineering and essential for field-use applications.
Each SDK adds install size, a disclosure obligation and an ongoing update burden. Fewer, better-chosen dependencies cost less to build and considerably less to maintain.
OS releases, SDK updates and policy changes make maintenance continuous rather than occasional. Planning it up front sometimes changes whether an app is the right choice at all.
Attendance, payroll and leave platform with role-based access, where capture has to keep working regardless of connectivity.
Visit siteOur inventory platform with barcode scanning and multi-warehouse stock — the operational, scan-driven pattern business apps depend on.
Visit siteMulti-branch education site presenting programmes and safety information to parents — the audience where age-appropriate considerations arise most naturally.
Visit siteWe ask who is likely to access the service before designing, because the code changes defaults, data collection and engagement mechanics rather than adding a policy.
We check whether a store app is genuinely warranted given the ongoing maintenance commitment. For many UK businesses a progressive web app is the better answer and we say so.
Account deletion, sign-in options, subscription presentation and disclosure requirements are treated as design inputs rather than a submission checklist.
Including what third-party SDKs collect, since that is the part most teams cannot see and it determines whether privacy disclosures are accurate.
A standing daily slot in your morning, because app projects generate many small decisions and each unanswered one can stall a screen.
Submission under your accounts with your signing keys, then an agreed cadence for OS releases, SDK updates and policy changes.
These apply to us as much as to anyone else bidding for your work.
Possibly, and more often than people assume. The test is whether under-18s are likely to access the service, not whether it is aimed at them, which captures many general-audience apps. Where it applies you need high privacy defaults, data minimisation, profiling off by default, careful geolocation handling and restraint in engagement techniques — all product design decisions rather than policy wording.
Think carefully first. A self-declared date of birth is unreliable and is itself personal data you now hold about everyone. For lower-risk services, applying the code's protections to all users by default is often simpler and better. The position to avoid is collecting dates nobody verifies — negligible assurance, real obligation, and a field users lie in.
Often a progressive web app is the better answer, and we will say so. An app earns its place for genuine offline capability, device features, meaningful push notifications or truly repeat usage. For a task customers perform twice a year, install friction alone will cost you most of the audience — and you take on the maintenance obligation regardless.
Usually for reasons unrelated to whether the software works — unclear privacy disclosures, a sign-in flow missing a required option, subscription terms not presented in the required format, or functionality judged too thin to justify an app. Designing against the guidelines costs almost nothing; discovering them at submission costs your launch date.
Cross-platform covers both from one codebase at roughly one build cost, and for most business applications the trade-off costs nothing a user notices. Native earns the second codebase when you need graphics-heavy performance, deep OS integration or platform-specific capability as a selling point.
More than most buyers expect. Both platforms ship annual OS releases that deprecate APIs and change conventions, SDKs need updating, and store policies change. An unmaintained app degrades and can eventually be removed. We raise this during scoping because it sometimes changes whether an app is the right choice.
You do. We publish under your developer accounts with signing keys held by you, and transfer source code and all credentials on final payment with full IP assignment. Vendor-held signing keys are the most difficult lock-in to unwind, so we avoid creating it.
A meaningful share of search in this market happens in a language other than English. These are the terms people actually use — we work with your translator for customer-facing copy rather than relying on machine translation.
Last reviewed 2026-08-06 by the EasyWork Solutions team.