Why Airbnb Moved Away from React Native: Lessons for App Teams

Airbnb’s move away from React Native may sound simple: the company tried a cross-platform tool, then stopped using it. But there’s more to the story. It shows how a technology that seems like a good fit at first can become harder to manage as a company grows.

React Native helped Airbnb share parts of its app between iOS and Android. It also let engineers build with JavaScript and React, tools many already knew. Over time, the team found that supporting the framework across a large app took more work than expected.

In 2018, Airbnb began moving its mobile apps back to native development. That doesn’t mean React Native failed, or that every company should avoid it. Airbnb’s choice came down to its app, teams, goals, and technical needs. Those details matter.

Here, we’ll look at why Airbnb made the change, what the team learned, and how other businesses can use those lessons. Think of it as a guide to choosing app technology—not a vote for one tool over another.

What Does “Airbnb Moved Away from React Native” Mean?

First, let’s clear up a common mix-up. Airbnb didn’t abandon React altogether. React Native is a framework for building mobile apps with React and JavaScript. React is also used to build web interfaces. Airbnb’s decision was about using React Native for its iOS and Android apps.

Airbnb adopted React Native in 2016. The company hoped it would help mobile teams work faster and share more code between platforms. That made sense. The iOS and Android apps often need similar screens, buttons, and user flows. Building some of those pieces once could save the team from doing the same work twice.

By 2018, Airbnb had decided to phase out React Native and return to native app development. It didn’t happen all at once. Large apps can’t usually swap their main technology in a weekend. It’s more like changing an airplane’s engines while it’s still in the air.

Airbnb’s engineers shared the reasons behind the decision in their Sunsetting React Native article. It’s a useful source because it explains the company’s thinking directly, rather than relying on rumors or a catchy headline.

The challenge wasn’t just writing screen code. Airbnb’s engineers also had to support a large app, connect mobile code to existing systems, manage updates, and help teams work together. React Native was only one part of that setup. A tool might work well in a small test app but create new challenges when many teams and features depend on it.

So the story isn’t simply “React Native was slow” or “native is always better.” Airbnb considered the full cost of building, updating, testing, and supporting its apps. The right choice for a large travel company may not be right for a small product team. Instead of asking which framework won, ask what the company needed and which trade-offs it was willing to accept.

Why Airbnb Chose React Native in the First Place

To understand the change, it helps to look at why React Native appealed to Airbnb. The framework offered a shared way to build features for iOS and Android. Teams could use JavaScript and React, then connect that code to native parts of each app. The goal wasn’t to make every line of code identical. It was to share the parts that made sense.

That can be helpful. Picture a travel app with a search form, a list of places to stay, and a booking flow. Both mobile apps need similar features. With shared code, a team may be able to build some of the behavior once and use it on both platforms. That can cut down on repeated work and keep features in sync.

React Native also felt familiar to web engineers who already knew React. A company with a strong JavaScript team could use those skills instead of building its mobile group from scratch. That can help a team test an idea sooner and find out whether users want it.

Airbnb’s early use of React Native wasn’t a random experiment. The company saw a chance to speed up development and let teams share useful code. Those were practical goals for a business with many app features to build and maintain.

Still, “write once, run everywhere” can make cross-platform tools sound more magical than they are. Real apps have platform-specific needs. An iPhone may behave differently from an Android phone. People also expect familiar navigation, animations, accessibility features, and system controls. A shared framework can help with common work, but it can’t erase those differences.

For Airbnb, the key question was whether shared development could save enough time without adding too much complexity. The answer changed as the team gained experience. That’s a normal part of choosing technology. A decision that makes sense at first may need a second look as the product, team, or tools change.

The Main Reasons Airbnb Moved Away from React Native

Airbnb’s public explanation pointed to several challenges, not one deal-breaker. That’s easy to miss. Big engineering decisions often come from many small costs adding up. One extra step in a developer’s day may not seem like much. Multiply it across teams, releases, and years, and it can become a serious burden.

Keeping Up with Platform Changes Took Work

React Native sits between an app and the native features of iOS and Android. That connection needs to keep working as Apple, Google, and React Native release updates. A mobile platform change may mean updating libraries, fixing build problems, or changing code that depends on older behavior.

For a small app, those updates may be easy to handle. For a large one, they can affect many features and teams. If the framework, a third-party library, and the operating system all change on different schedules, engineers have to figure out what caused each problem. It can feel like tracking down one squeaky floorboard in a very large house.

Shared Code Didn’t Get Rid of Every Repeated Task

Sharing code can save time, but it doesn’t mean every screen works the same way on both platforms. Some features still need iOS-specific or Android-specific code. Developers may also need to build and maintain parts that connect JavaScript to native code.

Airbnb’s team had to manage both the React Native layer and the native app layer. When a feature needed platform-specific behavior, engineers still had to understand the native tools. The extra layers could take away some of the time saved by sharing code.

Tools and Workflows Added Friction

Developers use build, debugging, testing, and release tools every day. When those tools work well together, the process feels smooth. When they don’t, even a small change can take longer than it should.

Airbnb’s engineers discussed issues with their development workflow and tool support. That matters because productivity isn’t just about how quickly someone can write a screen. It’s also about how easily the team can test it, find bugs, release an update, and figure out what went wrong.

Team Structure and Code Ownership Mattered

Airbnb had many engineers working on a large product. That creates different needs from those of a small team building its first app. Teams need clear ownership, shared standards, and ways to make sure one change doesn’t surprise another group.

A framework can affect how teams divide up the work. If a project needs both React Native and native skills, it may create extra handoffs. Engineers may also need to learn more than one way to build mobile features. For Airbnb, supporting that setup became part of the cost.

Together, these issues made native development a better fit for Airbnb at the time. The company wasn’t saying React Native could never work. It was saying that, for its size and setup, the long-term costs outweighed the benefits it had hoped to gain.

What Native Development Offered Airbnb

Native development means building each app with the tools and languages designed for its platform. For iOS, that can include Swift and Apple’s development tools. For Android, it can include Kotlin and Android Studio. The details may change, but the main idea is the same: each app is built closer to its operating system.

This gives teams direct access to platform features and familiar tools. When Apple or Google adds a new feature, native developers can often use it directly. They may not need to wait for a cross-platform framework or library to support it. That can help with apps that rely on complex interactions or frequent platform updates.

Native development can also make it easier to follow each platform’s design habits. People expect an iPhone app and an Android app to feel right on their devices. Small details—like navigation, menus, gestures, and accessibility settings—shape that experience. When someone is booking a place in a hurry, the app should feel dependable, not like a web page dressed up as a phone app.

There’s a trade-off. Native development may mean maintaining more than one codebase. A feature built for iOS may need a separate Android version. Teams have to plan for that work and make sure the two apps don’t drift apart in important ways. This can raise costs, especially for a small team with limited time.

For Airbnb, direct access to platform tools and a closer fit with its engineering teams made native development appealing. That doesn’t mean it’s always faster. A team with little iOS or Android experience may find it harder to hire, learn, and release updates. The benefits depend on what the team knows and what the app needs.

There’s also a difference between short-term speed and long-term ease. A cross-platform framework may help a team build its first version quickly. Native code may give a larger team more control over platform details later. In another case, the reverse may be true. The choice comes down to balancing today’s speed with tomorrow’s upkeep.

React Native vs. Native Apps: A Practical Comparison

There’s no single winner for every mobile project. The right choice depends on the app’s features, the team’s skills, and the time available for maintenance. This table offers a starting point, not a final answer.

When you read the table, focus on your team’s actual work. If most of your app uses common screens and simple flows, sharing code may help. If it depends on camera features, advanced maps, background tasks, or custom interactions, direct access to platform tools may matter more.

Also think about what happens after launch. A quick first release isn’t the whole project. You may need to support new phone models, operating system updates, accessibility needs, and user requests for years. A framework that saves a month now could add work later—or save time on every future feature. Look at the whole journey, not just the first step.

What Airbnb’s Decision Does Not Prove

Airbnb’s decision doesn’t prove React Native is a bad framework. It shows that one company decided the costs were too high for its needs. That difference matters. When a large company changes direction, it’s tempting to copy its choice without checking whether the same challenges apply to your project.

Companies and product teams still use React Native. It can work well when teams want to share code, already have React experience, and can manage the app’s platform needs. A small business may face very different costs from Airbnb. For that team, hiring React developers might be easier than hiring separate iOS and Android specialists.

But React Native isn’t a shortcut around app planning. Teams still need to test on real devices, handle platform differences, and keep libraries up to date. Shared code doesn’t mean no maintenance. It just means a different kind of maintenance.

It’s also worth remembering that technology changes over time. React Native has changed since Airbnb made its decision. Tools, libraries, and team practices may be different now. If you’re considering the framework today, test the current version against your needs instead of treating a decision from 2018 as a rule for everyone.

Airbnb’s experience is a good reason to look beyond a demo. A framework can look great in a small sample app. The real test is what happens when many engineers, features, and release cycles depend on it. A short pilot can help uncover issues while it’s still easy to change direction.

Lessons App Teams Can Take from Airbnb

Airbnb’s experience offers a few useful lessons for teams choosing mobile technology. First, decide what success means before comparing frameworks. “Build faster” is too vague. Do you mean launching the first version sooner, shipping features every week, sharing a few components, or needing fewer engineers? Each goal may point to a different choice.

Second, count the full cost. Include hiring, training, testing, releases, upgrades, and bug fixes. Also ask who will support the app when the first developers move to another project. It may not be the most exciting part of a framework demo, but future-you will be glad you thought about it.

Third, test real features—not just simple screens. A useful pilot should include the harder parts of your app. For a travel product, that might mean maps, search filters, payments, booking changes, and slow or lost internet connections. If your app uses the camera or location services, test those too. You’ll get a clearer picture of the framework when the test looks like real work.

Fourth, give the experiment enough time. A tiny prototype can show whether a team can build a screen. It can’t show how upgrades, testing, releases, and team handoffs will feel over time. Talk to the engineers who will maintain the product, not just the people building the first demo.

Finally, plan to review your choice. A technology decision isn’t permanent. Set a date to check whether it still meets your needs. If the product grows, the team changes, or the framework improves, your answer may change too. Airbnb’s move shows that changing course can be a sign of good engineering, not failure.

A Simple Framework Selection Walkthrough

Before choosing React Native or native development, a product team can follow these steps:

1. List your app’s hardest features. Note anything that needs platform-specific behavior, such as maps, camera access, background work, or custom animations.
2. Check your team’s current skills. Find out who knows JavaScript, React, Swift, Kotlin, and mobile testing.
3. Build a small but realistic pilot. Include one standard screen and one challenging feature. Test both on iOS and Android devices.
4. Track the work, not just the result. Record build time, debugging time, testing effort, and how often you need help from specialists.
5. Estimate future upkeep. Decide how the team will handle framework updates, operating system changes, and new app features.
6. Set a review date. Check later to see whether the approach still fits the product and team.

This process won’t remove every unknown. No spreadsheet can predict every bug. But it can help your team replace vague opinions with real evidence—a smart move before a technology choice becomes part of a large app.

How to Decide Whether React Native Fits Your Project

Start with your product, not a framework’s popularity. What does the app need to do? Who will use it? How often will features change? Should the experience look almost the same on iOS and Android, or should each version follow familiar platform patterns?

Then take an honest look at your team. If you already have React developers and your app uses mostly common screens, React Native may help you share work. If you have experienced iOS and Android developers, native development may be easier to support. If you don’t have mobile specialists, include hiring or training in your plan. A framework can’t replace product knowledge or good testing.

Think about risks, too. If an important feature depends on a third-party library, check whether it’s actively maintained and supports the devices you need. If your app needs a new platform feature, find out how the framework handles it. Don’t assume something will be easy just because a tutorial shows a short example.

You could ask a mobile app development partner to review your plan before work begins. A good partner should explain the trade-offs in plain language, not promise one tool will solve everything. For an overview of mobile app development services and planning, see Studio Krew’s mobile application development page. Treat it as one point of view, then compare it with your needs and your team’s experience.

Most of all, don’t choose a technology just because another company chose it. Airbnb’s needs came from its size, product, and engineering teams. Your project may be simpler, more specialized, or just different. The best technology is the one your team can build, test, release, and maintain without turning every update into an adventure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Airbnb completely stop using React Native?

In 2018, Airbnb announced plans to phase out React Native in its mobile apps. The change didn’t happen overnight. The decision was about React Native in the mobile apps, not React as a whole.

Why did Airbnb move away from React Native?

Airbnb pointed to several concerns, including the work involved in maintaining its setup, issues with tools and workflows, and the challenge of supporting a large app across platforms. The decision came down to the overall cost of using the framework at Airbnb, not one simple performance issue.

Is React Native still a good choice for mobile apps?

It can be a good choice for teams that can benefit from sharing code and have the right skills and app requirements. It may be a less natural fit for apps that depend heavily on platform-specific features or need close control over native behavior. A pilot project can help you decide.

Is native app development always faster?

No. Native development gives teams direct access to iOS and Android tools, but it may mean more separate work across the two apps. Speed depends on the team’s skills, the app’s features, and how much code can reasonably be shared.

Should a small company follow Airbnb’s example?

Not without looking at its own needs. A small team may get more value from React Native than a large company with many mobile specialists. Compare the costs of hiring, building, testing, and maintaining the app before making a choice.

The Takeaway: Choose for the App You Need to Maintain

Airbnb moved away from React Native because the framework’s long-term costs didn’t fit the company’s needs. Platform updates, limits on shared code, developer tools, and the work of supporting a large app all played a part. It was a decision about fit, not a verdict for every company.

For other teams, the lesson is simple: judge a framework by the full job it needs to do. Test real features. Think about who will maintain the app. Count the cost of the first release and the years that follow. React Native may suit one product, while native iOS and Android development may be a better choice for another.

Airbnb’s story is a reminder that good engineering sometimes means changing course. Your technology should help your team serve its users. If it starts getting in the way, it’s fair to ask whether another approach would work better.