Most Flutter architecture advice focuses on getting an app built.
Very little talks about what happens after the app ships — when real users, real data, and real constraints show up.
After releasing multiple Flutter apps into production, we noticed a pattern:
some architectural decisions looked perfectly reasonable during development, but quietly turned into problems only after launch.
This article isn’t about beginner mistakes.
These are issues that surfaced despite using “best practices”.
If you’re building Flutter apps intended to live beyond an MVP, these are worth paying attention to.
1. Optimizing for Flexibility Instead of Clarity
Early on, we designed our architecture to be highly flexible:
- abstract repositories everywhere
- interchangeable layers
- configurable flows “just in case”
It felt professional.
After release, the downside became obvious:
- onboarding new contributors took longer
- simple changes required touching multiple files
- bugs were harder to trace because behavior was spread across layers
What went wrong
Flexibility increased cognitive load without delivering real benefits.
Most of the abstractions were never swapped or extended.
What we learned
Clarity beats flexibility in small-to-medium Flutter apps.
It’s easier to add abstraction later than to remove it once everything depends on it.
2. Treating State Management as a Technical Choice Only
Before launch, state management felt like a tooling decision:
“Which package scales best?”
After release, it became a product problem.
Real users introduced:
- edge cases
- partial failures
- interrupted flows
- inconsistent states after backgrounding
Our mistake wasn’t the library — it was modeling state around UI needs instead of product behavior.
What went wrong
State was structured for screens, not for:
- user intent
- async failure paths
- recovery scenarios
This caused subtle bugs that only appeared under real usage.
What we learned
State management decisions should start from product flows, not widgets.
Architecture needs to reflect how users actually move through the app.
3. Assuming “Small App” Means “Low Maintenance”
We treated the app as small because:
- the codebase wasn’t huge
- the team was small
- the feature set felt contained
After release, maintenance told a different story:
- hotfixes
- analytics-driven changes
- platform updates
- performance tuning
The architecture wasn’t designed for ongoing change.
What went wrong
We optimized for delivery speed, not for:
- debugging speed
- refactoring safety
- incremental improvement
This slowed us down post-launch.
What we learned
Small apps still need production thinking.
Release isn’t the finish line — it’s when architecture starts being tested.
4. Hiding Too Much Logic Away From the UI
In an effort to keep widgets “clean,” we pushed logic deep into:
- services
- helpers
- utility layers
After release, debugging became painful.
When something broke, it wasn’t obvious:
- where state changed
- why a UI reacted a certain way
- which layer owned the behavior
What went wrong
We optimized for theoretical purity instead of traceability.
What we learned
Some logic belongs close to the UI.
A readable widget tree that explains why it behaves a certain way is often more valuable than a perfectly clean separation.
5. Not Designing for Observability Early
Before launch, we relied on:
- logs during development
- local debugging
- assumptions about behavior
After release, visibility dropped sharply.
When users reported issues, we often lacked:
- enough context
- meaningful logs
- state snapshots
The architecture didn’t support observability.
What went wrong
We treated logging and diagnostics as afterthoughts.
What we learned
Production architecture includes:
- intentional logging
- clear state transitions
- traceable error paths
If you can’t observe it, you can’t improve it.
Final Thoughts
None of these mistakes prevented the app from shipping.
That’s the dangerous part.
They only became visible once:
- real users arrived
- behavior diverged from expectations
- maintenance became the main workload
The biggest lesson we learned is this:
Architecture decisions matter most after release, not before it.
Since then, we approach Flutter architecture with a simpler question:
“Will this help us understand and change the app six months from now?”
If the answer isn’t clear, we reconsider.
—
This article reflects how we approach building and maintaining Flutter products in production.
Occasional notes on engineering and product thinking live here: https://linkedin.com/in/abdul-wahab-0bb90b361
Top comments (0)