Can I Build My App in Stages to Spread Out Costs?

How would you feel about spending £80k on an app, only to discover that users only care about three of the twelve features you've built? That feeling sits heavy with many business owners who've watched their carefully planned budgets disappear into features nobody asked for, and it's the exact reason why building your app in stages makes so much sense from both a financial and a strategic perspective. The approach allows you to test what works, learn from real user behaviour, and adjust your spending based on actual evidence rather than assumptions (which, after ten years of building apps, I can tell you are wrong more often than they're right). Breaking your development into phases means you can start with a smaller investment, validate your core idea, and then expand based on what your users actually need rather than what you think they might want.

Spreading development across multiple stages reduces financial risk whilst giving you time to learn what truly matters to your users before committing larger budgets.

What Phased Development Really Means

Phased development is the practice of building your app in distinct versions, where each version adds new capabilities on top of what came before, and it's different from just releasing a half-finished product because each phase should deliver real value to users. The first version (often called an MVP or minimum viable product) contains just enough features to solve your core problem and attract early users who will give you feedback. Version two might add features that your users are asking for, whilst version three could introduce more advanced capabilities that take your app from useful to indispensable... and so on until you've built something truly comprehensive.

The process works because each phase is planned based on what you learned in the previous one, which means you're always building features that have been validated by real user feedback rather than boardroom speculation. Most apps I've worked on over the past decade have followed this pattern, from healthcare platforms to fintech tools, and the ones that succeeded were almost always the ones that resisted the urge to build everything at once. Understanding the complete MVP development process helps ensure your first phase delivers maximum value whilst keeping costs under control.

Why Most Apps Should Start Small

Starting with a small first version protects you from the single biggest mistake I've watched clients make, which is spending their entire budget building features that users don't actually want or need. A healthcare booking app I worked on in 2019 originally had a specification that included video consultations, prescription management, health records integration, and appointment reminders... but when we launched with just the booking system and reminders, we discovered that users were struggling with the booking flow itself, which meant adding all those other features would have been pointless until we fixed the fundamental experience. The key is understanding what your app's first year budget should really include so you can allocate resources effectively across multiple phases.

Budget 20-30% less for your first phase than you think you need, then hold that money back for adjustments based on early user feedback. You'll need it.

The financial benefits are straightforward enough... instead of committing 90 grand upfront, you might spend 35k on phase one, see if it works, and then decide whether to continue. But the learning benefits matter just as much, because a small first version gets into users' hands faster, which means you start collecting real feedback sooner rather than later. I've seen apps pivot entirely based on what they learned in the first three months, and those pivots would have been catastrophically expensive if they'd already built everything. Learning how successful apps started small and won big can provide valuable insights for planning your own phased approach.

Planning Your First Version

Choosing what goes into your first version requires brutal honesty about what your app absolutely must do versus what would be nice to have, and I've found that most teams struggle with this more than any other part of the planning process. The technique that works is to identify the single problem your app solves, then list only the features needed to solve that specific problem... nothing more. An e-commerce app needs product listings, a basket, and checkout. It doesn't need wishlists, reviews, social sharing, or personalised recommendations in version one (even though everyone wants those things immediately). Before committing to development, consider what your app prototype should test to validate your core assumptions.

• Define the one core problem your app solves
• List features needed to solve that problem
• Remove anything that's a "nice to have"
• Cut features that depend on having lots of users first
• Remove features that require complex integrations
• Keep anything that affects the basic user journey

The features you remove don't disappear forever, they just move to phase two or three where you can build them properly based on what you've learned. A fintech app I developed had a features list that started at 43 items, and we cut it down to 14 for the first version... but by phase three, we'd added back 19 of those original features (the other 10 turned out to be unnecessary, which saved the client about 25 grand). Understanding what makes some app projects run smoothly can help you avoid common pitfalls during this crucial planning phase.

Adding Features in Later Stages

Deciding what to build in phase two becomes much easier once you've had real users interacting with phase one for a few weeks, because they'll tell you exactly what's missing through support requests, app store reviews, and usage data. The features that get built in later stages should come from three sources: problems users are reporting, opportunities you've spotted in the analytics, and strategic capabilities that move you towards your long-term vision. A food delivery app I worked on launched with just restaurant browsing and ordering, then added saved addresses in phase two (because users were complaining), live order tracking in phase three (because the data showed people kept opening the app to check status), and scheduled ordering in phase four (because it was always part of the plan). Learning how to effectively manage negative app reviews and turn them into growth opportunities becomes crucial for identifying which features to prioritise in subsequent phases.

Each new phase should make your app more valuable to existing users whilst also making it more attractive to new users who haven't downloaded it yet.

The timing between phases matters because releasing too quickly means you haven't learned enough from the current version, whilst waiting too long means competitors might build what you're planning. I typically recommend 8-12 weeks between the first and second releases, which gives you time to collect meaningful data, plan the next features properly, and actually build them without rushing... though every app moves at its own pace depending on how quickly users adopt it and what feedback comes in. Understanding what makes users trust your app over bigger brands helps inform which features will strengthen user confidence as you expand.

Managing Costs Across Multiple Phases

Splitting your budget across phases changes how you need to think about cash flow, because you're not paying everything upfront but you do need to maintain momentum between phases (otherwise your development team might get assigned to other projects and you'll lose continuity). The approach I've found works is to allocate roughly 40% of your total expected budget to phase one, 30% to phase two, and 30% to phase three... though those percentages shift depending on what you're building. An education platform might need a bigger phase one to get the core learning experience right, whilst a social app might need a smaller phase one because the real work comes in building engagement features later.

One thing many business owners forget is that each phase has costs beyond just development time. You'll pay for project management, testing, deployment, and sometimes redesign work if the first version revealed issues with your original approach. A retail client I worked with budgeted 28k for phase two development but ended up spending 34k once we included time to refine the onboarding flow (which users were abandoning in phase one) and improve the performance on Android devices. Building in a 15-20% contingency for each phase helps avoid those awkward Wednesday afternoon conversations about going over budget. Don't forget to factor in database costs you should plan for from day one, as these can scale significantly as you add users and features in later phases.

Technical Challenges of Building in Stages

The technical side of phased development requires careful architecture planning upfront, because you need to build systems that can expand without needing to be completely rebuilt in later phases. I learned this the hard way on an early project where we built phase one with a simple user authentication system that couldn't handle the social login features we wanted to add in phase two, which meant ripping out and replacing the entire login system at considerable expense. The solution is to build with expansion in mind even when you're keeping features simple, which means using modular code structures, planning your database schema to accommodate future features, and choosing third-party services that won't become limitations later.

Ask your development team to document "expansion points" in the code where future features will slot in. This small step saves hours of work later.

Another technical consideration is maintaining quality whilst adding features, because each new phase introduces code that could break existing functionality if you're not careful. Automated testing becomes particularly valuable in phased development, as it lets you verify that new features haven't broken old ones... though I'll admit that many clients skip proper testing in phase one to save money, then regret it in phase two when bugs start appearing. If you're working on specific app types, it's worth understanding the unique considerations - for example, building your first mobile game without going broke requires different technical decisions than a business application.

When to Release Each Version

Timing your releases requires balancing multiple factors including how much feedback you've collected, whether the next set of features is ready, and what's happening in your market (releasing a major update the week before Christmas rarely goes well). The first version should launch as soon as it's stable and provides real value, which might be 10-14 weeks from project kickoff depending on complexity. That feels fast to most business owners who are used to longer development cycles, but speed matters because every week you're not in the market is a week you're not learning.

1. Review user feedback and identify top three issues
2. Check if analytics show any unexpected user behaviour
3. Confirm the next features address real user needs
4. Ensure development team has capacity
5. Verify budget is available for the next phase
6. Plan release for a Tuesday or Wednesday (never Friday)

Subsequent releases work best when they happen regularly enough to show users you're actively improving the app, but not so frequently that users feel overwhelmed by constant changes. I typically aim for 6-10 week gaps between releases, which gives users time to adapt to new features whilst maintaining a sense of momentum. A travel app I worked on released five major updates in its first nine months, each one adding capabilities that users had specifically requested... and that regular improvement cycle helped build trust with the user base in a way that a single big release never could have achieved. Understanding what makes users install apps from social media posts can help you time releases to maximise organic growth opportunities.

Conclusion

Building your app in stages protects your budget, reduces risk, and almost always results in a better product than trying to build everything at once... because you're making decisions based on real user feedback rather than assumptions made in a Monday planning meeting. The approach requires discipline to resist adding every possible feature to version one, and it requires patience to wait for user feedback before committing to phase two, but those are small prices to pay for avoiding the alternative (which is spending your full budget on an app that misses what users actually need). Phased development turns your app project from a single high-stakes bet into a series of smaller, validated steps where each phase builds on proven success rather than untested hopes.

If you're planning an app project and want to discuss how phased development could work for your specific situation, get in touch and we can talk through the options.

Frequently Asked Questions