So you’re building an app. Or maybe you’ve just launched a small startup. Perhaps this isn’t your first rodeo—you’ve already shipped projects into the most cutthroat arena of all: today’s mobile industry. Wherever you are in the journey, you know one unshakable truth – you’re fighting for attention in a market that never sleeps. In 2024 alone, users downloaded over 230 billion apps worldwide. The competition is brutal. And although most of these products will not survive beyond their first few months, here’s the paradox – apps don’t die because customers ignore them. They die because they fail to endure beyond those first few months. Longevity, not visibility, is the real battlefield.
So how do you keep a new idea from becoming another statistic? And why is failure so immediate, almost baked into the DNA of most apps? Artemii Shlesberg, a veteran mobile systems architect and product engineer, has a blunt answer: “Don’t treat software as code—treat it as a living solution.”
Shlesberg has watched dozens of apps rise and fall, and he’s been in the trenches himself. He started as a youngster winning national hackathons VKHack and SberHack, and from there, broke into institutions that rarely open their doors to young developers. From there he went on to lead bold, experimental projects around the globe. This is where a realization set in – speed is far not everything. His early work included building “Tochka XS” one of 2018’s most promising fintech projects, launched as a startup within a major Russian bank. That experience shaped his philosophy: real problems first, programming second. In practice, this often means acting less like a pure engineer and more like a product developer. And that’s exactly the lesson he now carries into his consulting with startups: “Programming is never the end goal. What matters is whether an app builds trust, solves a problem worth solving, and adapts as users evolve.” His track record across banking, live streaming, and healthcare drives home the point: the products that survive are built as solutions, not just as programs.
But wait, you might say—doesn’t this sound like the classic trap? You start overthinking your code, trying to anticipate every possible edge case, writing for the best, the worst, and the downright ugly. Soon, you’ve generated hundreds of lines of defensive code, and what you’re left with is a bloated, fragile app that scares off any new hire brave enough to touch it. Here’s the thing: over-engineering is not the real problem. The real problem is under-thinking. “Overly sophisticated coding often creates hidden debt,” says Artemii Shlesberg, reflecting on his own experience. “When you’re building a streaming service for a large audience, it’s easy to believe that the more architecture abstractions you pile on, the more your audience will love it. But users don’t know architecture exists.”
When Shlesberg built the iOS app Voices from the ground up, restraint mattered as much as innovation. His guiding principle was clear: architecture over volume. That philosophy shaped every decision—blending SwiftUI with UIKit, pairing Apple’s experimental Combine framework with the proven MVVM pattern, and balancing custom WebSockets with boxed solution Agora’s streaming SDK. The goal was never to write more code; it was to write the right code. The payoff was both technical and commercial. Within six months, Voices reached 10,000 monthly active users and doubled revenue.
Even monetization—where countless streaming platforms stumble—was solved with the same discipline. Shlesberg integrated Apple Pay, Stripe, and crypto wallets into a system that felt nearly invisible, giving creators multiple revenue streams without introducing friction. Growth didn’t come from flashy marketing campaigns. It came because users trusted the app to work: reliably, consistently, and without unnecessary complication. You don’t need hundreds of lines of code for complex tasks, but you do need to think a hundred times before writing one. It may sound like old-fashioned advice, but it points to a deeper truth. Deliberate simplicity is not the same as naive shortcuts. One demands rigor, the other invites collapse. Artemii cautions his startup consultees “An app that crashes once loses more users than ten missing features.”
So we agree: thoughtful creation matters. But let’s get back to the project you’re building. Ironically, the work of a lone developer is often simpler than the work of a startup leader. When you control your own code, you can absorb advice—whether from books, blog posts, or hard-won mistakes—and steadily improve as a builder. Leadership, however, is different. Even if you understand the value of deliberate coding and big-picture architecture, you can’t simply impose that mindset on your team. Developers, like anyone else, have to want to improve for themselves. As Artemii Shlesberg puts it: “Here is where we get to the real uncomfortable truth. It’s the hiring, not the internal improvement.”
Shlesberg speaks from experience. In most of the startups he worked with, he not only wrote the first lines of code but also assembled the teams that followed. That perspective taught him a harsh lesson: too many founders listen to the market’s demand for faster output and hire for speed over substance. “A great engineer isn’t the one who writes code fastest,” he says. “It’s the one who knows when not to write it at all.”
His advice to startup leaders is pointed: hire people who talk about architecture, not just syntax. Look for those who understand scaling and maintenance, not just feature delivery. At Voices, for instance, Shlesberg sought developers who could handle hundreds of users interacting simultaneously, with streams of data flowing from multiple sources while maintaining a fluid user experience. He didn’t just evaluate what candidates had built before; he studied how the scope of their responsibilities grew in past roles, and whether they scaled alongside their companies. The goal was always to match the engineer’s readiness for responsibility with the project’s growth trajectory.
This takes time, and it demands restraint. But unlike the elusive task of changing a developer’s mindset after the fact, hiring for thoughtfulness is something a leader can directly control. And here’s the provocation: as a founder, you already know how to go against the current—that’s why you started something new in the first place. Apply the same courage to hiring. Slow down, resist the temptation of speed for its own sake, and build with people who think before they code.
Let’s bring it back. How do we navigate the valley where countless apps have died and make it to the other side? As an engineer, build an architecture you can trust—one that’s simple enough to adapt without breaking and structured enough to scale gracefully. Yes, it’s unglamorous work. The software that matters most is invisible. Users will never see your modular architecture or your encryption layer. But they will feel the reliability, the speed, the quiet trust those systems create. And investors? They notice it, too—because smooth, dependable performance is what translates into adoption, revenue, and credibility in a crowded market.
Looking at your product through the eyes of your users may sound obvious, but it’s harder than most founders think. And yet, it’s the discipline that separates the winners from the rest. What tech giants call “customer obsession” finds real meaning here. A great engineer isn’t just closing tickets—they’re solving for people. As Shlesberg puts it, “An app that crashes once loses more users than ten missing features.” Across a career spanning fintech, banking, live streaming, and healthcare, his message to founders has remained consistent: invest in responsible engineering early. “You won’t get a second chance at trust,” he warns. So as a CEO, be deliberate. Hire developers who are ready for the scale and responsibility you’re entrusting to them. Build with stability, flexibility, and accountability at the core. Because in a world where anyone can ship an app, those three qualities are what will turn your product from another fleeting download into something that endures.