Making Informed Decisions Beyond the Hype in App Development

In 2024, microservice architecture continues to grow and evolve, solidifying its position as a pivotal approach in modern software development. According to a survey by Solo.io, 85% of modern enterprise companies are managing complex applications with microservices, indicating a significant move away from monolithic architectures​​. Moreover, the cloud microservice market is projected to reach $13.20 billion by 2034, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 21.20% from 2024 to 2034​. This growth is fueled by the increasing integration of advanced technologies such as AI and ML.

However, it’s important to understand that microservice architecture is not suitable for every situation. While it offers significant benefits in terms of scalability, flexibility, and modularity, it also introduces complexity and operational overhead.

In this article, we will discuss the current state of microservice architecture, analyze whether it is still a trend worth pursuing, and provide insights on making informed decisions when choosing. We will delve into situations when your business needs microservices and when not and explore alternative architectural styles to help you determine the best approach for your projects.

What is microservice architecture, and why is it so popular?

Imagine a large corporation where each department operates independently but collaborates to achieve the company’s overall goals, as opposed to a small business where one team handles everything together. This same way works in microservice architecture. 

It’s an approach to software development where a large application is composed of small, independent services that communicate with each other through APIs. Each service is focused on a specific business capability and can be developed, deployed, and scaled independently. This architectural style contrasts with the traditional monolithic approach, where an application is built as a single, cohesive unit.

The microservice architecture approach became popular due to several key factors and benefits that it offers over traditional monolithic architectures. Here are some of the main reasons for its popularity:

  • Independence: Each microservice operates independently and is responsible for a specific functionality;
  • Loose coupling: Services are loosely coupled, meaning changes in one service minimally impact others;
  • Autonomy: Teams can develop, deploy, and scale services independently;
  • Resilience: If one service fails, it does not cause the entire system to fail;
  • Scalability: Each service can be scaled independently based on its load.

What is microservice architecture’s evolution?

Microservice architecture evolved from the principles of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) in the early 2000s, which promoted building applications as collections of loosely coupled services. In the mid-2000s to early 2010s, companies like Amazon and Netflix began experimenting with microservices to tackle scaling issues and enhance deployment speed. By 2011, the term “microservices” gained traction within the tech community. From 2015 onwards, microservices became mainstream as more companies adopted the architecture and shared their success stories, solidifying their place in modern software development.

When does your business need microservices?

In the paragraph below, we will explore common scenarios where transitioning to a microservices architecture can significantly benefit your business. Understanding these situations can help you determine if this approach is right for your organization.

Scalability needs

Businesses often need microservices when they face high scalability demands and require frequent updates. The thing is that microservices help scale big businesses by allowing each service to be developed, deployed, and scaled independently. This means that giant companies can handle a growing user base and continuous deployment needs by running multiple services in parallel, ensuring rapid development and deployment of new features without disrupting the entire system.

For instance, Netflix, which serves millions of users, transitioned from a monolithic to a microservice architecture to handle its growing user base and the need for continuous deployment. By 2015, Netflix was running over 700 microservices in production, enabling rapid development and deployment of new features​.

Complexity management

Microservices excel in managing the complexity of large-scale applications. They allow isolation and independent management of numerous interdependent components. This reduces the risk of system-wide failures and makes it easier to introduce new features or fix bugs. According to the latest survey by O’Reilly, 92% of respondents reported some success with microservices, with 54% describing their experience as “mostly successful” and less than 10% reporting complete success. The key to managing this complexity is automation, which helps scale, secure, and efficiently manage the numerous microservices​​.

For instance, Uber, by transitioning to a microservices architecture, increased flexibility and autonomy for its teams, allowing for faster and safer deployments. Uber reduced the integration time for new features from 3 days to 3 hours and organized 2,200 microservices into 70 domains, significantly reducing complexity and improving operational efficiency​. They also streamlined their operations and reduced onboarding time by 25-50%.

Team distribution

Distributed teams can also benefit from microservices. With teams spread across different locations, microservices allow each team to work on separate services using different technologies and processes that suit their specific needs. This independence reduces coordination overhead and speeds up development. That same survey by O’Reilly found that 61% of organizations using microservices reported improved team autonomy and faster delivery times.

When not to use microservices

Now, let’s examine situations where adopting a microservices architecture might not be the best choice for your business so that you avoid unnecessary complexity and ensure optimal system performance.

Small companies

Microservices are not the best choice for smaller projects or organizations with limited resources. The complexity and overhead of managing multiple services can outweigh the benefits when dealing with simple applications. For small projects, a monolithic architecture is more practical due to its simplicity and ease of management. A single, unified codebase can be easier to develop and maintain, reducing the need for extensive orchestration and monitoring tools.

Limited resources

Companies with constrained budgets and limited technical expertise may find microservices impractical due to the significant initial investment and ongoing operational costs associated with infrastructure, monitoring, and maintenance.

Small projects don’t have big teams. And businesses without a dedicated DevOps team might struggle with the operational complexity that comes with microservices. In contrast, larger enterprises like Netflix or Spotify have the necessary infrastructure and team size to manage microservices efficiently, which might not be the case for smaller entities.

High costs

Turns out there is a way back too. Big corporations can return to a monolithic architecture just like Amazon did in 2023. Amazon’s Prime Video team transitioned from a distributed microservices architecture to a monolithic application to address significant cost and scalability issues. Initially, the microservices architecture relied on AWS Step Functions and Lambda, which incurred high costs and hit scaling limits at around 5% of the expected load. Frequent state transitions and data transfers between components resulted in high expenses, particularly due to numerous calls to Amazon S3 for intermediate storage.

By consolidating all components into a single process running on Amazon EC2 and Amazon ECS, Amazon eliminated the need for intermediate S3 storage and reduced orchestration costs. This shift reduced infrastructure costs by over 90% and significantly improved scalability, allowing the system to handle thousands of streams more efficiently.

Alternatives to microservices

So, what are the alternatives to the microservices architecture? It’s worthwhile to explore options that may better suit certain types of projects and organizational needs, offering simpler and more manageable solutions.

Monolithic architecture 

Monolithic architecture involves building an application as a single, cohesive unit. This approach simplifies development, deployment, and testing because all components are contained within a single codebase. However, as the application grows, it can become unwieldy and difficult to maintain, leading to slower development cycles and scalability issues. Monoliths are best suited for smaller projects or applications with a clear, unchanging structure.

However, big companies like Segment and Amazon Prime Video still have reverted to monolithic architectures for certain projects due to the complexity and operational challenges posed by microservices​. Each business needs a detailed evaluation; therefore, at Kitrum, we can help you assess your architectural needs and find the best solution for your unique project requirements and organizational goals.

Serverless architecture 

Serverless architecture offers a transformative approach for businesses by eliminating the need for traditional server management. This model executes functions in response to events, automatically scaling with the workload. Companies consume resources only when necessary, leading to significant cost savings and operational efficiency.

The serverless architecture market was valued at around $7.6 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $21.1 billion by 2025, growing at a CAGR of approximately 22.7% during the forecast period. Serverless computing is particularly beneficial for applications with variable workloads, such as event-driven processes, micro-tasks, and unpredictable traffic patterns. By leveraging serverless architecture, businesses can reduce their infrastructure overhead, streamline their development processes, and focus more on innovation and delivering value to customers rather than manually managing servers and scaling infrastructure. This can result in faster time-to-market and the ability to adapt quickly to changing business needs and demands.

Modular monoliths 

Modular monoliths offer your business a balanced approach to application development by combining the simplicity of monolithic architecture with the modularity of microservices. This architecture organizes code into independent modules within a single application, clearly separating concerns and improving maintainability.

For businesses, this means easier application management and scalability without the added complexity and overhead associated with fully distributed microservices systems. Modular monoliths are particularly advantageous for growing applications that need to adapt over time, providing a flexible yet straightforward framework that supports innovation and efficiency. This approach can lead to reduced development time, lower operational costs, and a more streamlined path to scaling applications as business needs evolve.

Conclusion

In 2024, microservice architecture remains a significant force in modern software development, driven by its advantages in scalability, flexibility, and modularity. The widespread adoption by large enterprises and the projected growth of the cloud microservice market underscore its relevance. However, it is crucial to recognize that microservices are not a one-size-fits-all solution. The complexities and operational overhead can be prohibitive for smaller projects or organizations with limited resources.

As we have explored, the choice of architecture should be informed by the specific needs and context of your business. For high scalability demands and complex applications, microservices can offer substantial benefits. Yet, for smaller projects or companies without extensive technical expertise, traditional monolithic architectures or alternative approaches like serverless architecture and modular monoliths may be more appropriate.

Ultimately, the decision to adopt microservices should be based on a thorough understanding of your business requirements, technical capabilities, and long-term goals.