That senior engineer convinced you to build a microservices architecture for your MVP. Now you're six months in with nothing to show users. Here's why you chose wrong.
January 8, 2025 8 min read
You're Building Netflix's Architecture for Your Zero-User Product
Your founding engineer comes from Google. They know distributed systems. They've seen microservices at scale.
So naturally, they're building your MVP with separate services for auth, payments, notifications, and core features. Each with its own database. Deployed independently. Orchestrated with Kubernetes.
You have zero customers. You're solving orchestration problems that Amazon deals with.
Six months later, you're still building infrastructure instead of features. Your competitor launched in eight weeks with a monolith and has 500 paying users.
This is the microservices trap, and it's killing your MVP.
Over-Engineering Is a Form of Procrastination
Let's be honest about what's happening.
Building complex architecture feels productive. You're making real technical decisions. Writing real code. Solving real problems.
But none of it matters if you never ship.
Classic over-engineering behaviors:
Spending weeks on "foundational" infrastructure that could wait
Optimizing for scale you don't have and might never need
Building abstractions for flexibility you can't predict yet
Solving distributed system problems before you have distribution
The dirty secret: sometimes engineers choose complexity because it's more interesting than building the boring feature that actually gets you customers.
Stop planning and start building. We turn your idea into a production-ready product in 6-8 weeks.
Interesting doesn't pay the bills. Shipping does.
What Microservices Actually Cost You
The overhead isn't just development time. It's everything.
The real costs of premature distribution:
Development velocity:
Making a change requires coordinating multiple services instead of editing one file
Testing gets exponentially harder when features span services
Debugging becomes a nightmare tracing requests across systems
Onboarding new developers takes weeks instead of days
Infrastructure complexity:
DevOps overhead you shouldn't have yet managing deployments
Monitoring and logging across services requiring specialized tools
Higher hosting costs from running multiple applications
Network latency between services slowing down your app
Organizational friction:
Team coordination becomes mandatory for simple features
Service boundaries create political territories even in small teams
Tech debt accumulates faster because fixes require cross-service changes
Context switching destroys productivity as developers bounce between repos
One team came to us after spending $80K building a microservices MVP. They had beautiful architecture documentation. They also had zero shipped features after five months.
We rebuilt the same product as a monolith in six weeks for $25K. It launched with paying customers. For real cost comparisons at different complexity levels, see our true cost of MVP pricing breakdown.
The Monolith Is Not the Enemy
Somewhere along the way, "monolith" became a dirty word.
But every successful product started as a monolith. Facebook. Twitter. Netflix. Amazon. They scaled to billions of users before they needed to split things up.
What a well-built monolith gives you:
Speed:
Ship features in days, not weeks without service coordination
Iterate based on user feedback without architectural rewrites
Change your mind freely when you learn what actually matters
Simplicity:
One codebase means one place to look for everything
One deployment means shipping is simple and fast
One database means no distributed transaction headaches
Local development doesn't require Docker orchestration
Cost efficiency:
Single server handles thousands of users easily
Fewer moving parts means fewer things to break and monitor
Less specialized knowledge required to maintain
A monolith doesn't mean messy code. It means appropriate architecture for your stage.
When Microservices Actually Make Sense
There are legitimate reasons to go distributed. Zero users isn't one of them.
Valid triggers for microservices:
Scale problems you're actually experiencing:
Specific parts of your system are genuinely overloaded under real traffic
Different services have different scaling requirements based on usage data
Performance bottlenecks that can't be solved with better code or caching
Team structure that requires it:
Multiple teams working independently on different domains
Different release cycles for different features based on business needs
Clear ownership boundaries that reduce coordination overhead
Business requirements that demand it:
Regulatory compliance requiring isolation of sensitive data
White-label products where customers get isolated instances
Third-party integrations that need to be sandboxed for security
Notice what's missing from this list: "we might need to scale someday" and "it's best practice."
You'll know when you need microservices. The pain will be obvious. You'll have real data showing bottlenecks. You'll have multiple teams stepping on each other's toes.
Until then, you're optimizing for problems you don't have.
The Migration Path Is Easier Than You Think
The fear driving premature microservices: "migrating later will be impossible."
That's nonsense. Companies do it all the time.
The reality of monolith-to-microservices migration:
You extract services when you need to, not all at once
Well-structured monoliths have clear boundaries that make extraction straightforward
You only extract what's necessary based on actual constraints
The business context for decisions is clearer after you have users
One client started with a monolith, got to 10,000 users, then extracted their video processing into a separate service because it was resource-intensive. The migration took two weeks.
If they'd built microservices from day one, they'd still be building infrastructure instead of processing videos for paying customers.
Your MVP Architecture Should Be Boring
Startups die from novelty in architecture way more than from technical limitations.
The boring stack that works:
Monolithic application in a framework you know well
Single database (Postgres handles way more than you think)
Simple deployment to a platform that abstracts infrastructure
Minimal dependencies on services you don't control
Standard patterns that any developer can understand
Boring means you spend time on your actual product, not on your deployment pipeline.
Where to put your innovation budget:
The unique features that differentiate your product
The user experience that delights customers
The business model that generates revenue
The go-to-market strategy that finds users
Don't innovate on infrastructure. Innovate on value.
Signs You've Fallen Into the Over-Engineering Trap
Sometimes you don't realize you're stuck until someone points it out.
Warning signs you're over-engineering your MVP:
More time talking about architecture than shipping features
Solving theoretical problems instead of user problems
Tools and infrastructure backlog is longer than feature backlog
Can't demo working features despite weeks of work
New developers can't get environment running without help
"It'll be easier once the foundation is done" keeps being said
Timelines keep slipping due to "unexpected complexity"
If you recognize three or more of these, you've over-engineered.
The good news: you can fix it. The bad news: it requires admitting you chose wrong.
How to Course-Correct Without Starting Over
You don't have to throw away your work. You do have to simplify.
The escape plan from over-engineering:
Step 1: Define your actual MVP scope
What's the minimum feature set that creates value?
Which features can wait until after launch?
What would a paying customer actually use?
Step 2: Identify what's blocking that scope
Which services are actually necessary?
Where is complexity preventing shipping?
What infrastructure work can be delayed?
Step 3: Ruthlessly simplify
Merge services that don't need to be separate
Remove abstraction layers that aren't used yet
Switch to simpler deployment if Kubernetes is overkill
Cut features that require complex orchestration
Step 4: Set a hard launch deadline
6-8 weeks maximum to working product
Ship something imperfect but functional
Learn from real users, not theoretical architecture
This requires courage. Your engineer will resist. The sunk cost fallacy is real.
But another six months of "building the foundation" costs more than the hit to your ego from admitting you chose wrong.
The Questions That Reveal If You Need Microservices
Before you commit to distributed architecture, answer honestly:
Do you have services that:
Need to scale independently based on actual usage data?
Are developed by separate teams with different timelines?
Have fundamentally different infrastructure requirements?
Must be isolated for security or compliance reasons?
Can you answer yes to:
Do we have metrics showing bottlenecks a monolith can't solve?
Do we have organizational structures that require service boundaries?
Have we tried simpler solutions and proven they won't work?
If you answered no to most of these, you don't need microservices. You need to ship your MVP.
The Right Architecture Is the One That Ships
The best technical decision is the one that gets your product in front of users fastest.
Optimize for these metrics instead of architectural purity:
Time to first user feedback
Development velocity on new features
Ability to pivot when you learn you're wrong
Team productivity and morale
Time to revenue
Scope creep happens in architecture as much as in features. The cure is the same: ruthless prioritization of what actually matters now. For comprehensive cost analysis at different complexity levels, see our true cost of MVP pricing breakdown.
Build for Today's Problems, Not Tomorrow's Scale
You don't know what your scale problems will look like. You're guessing.
Here's what we do know:
90% of startups fail before scale becomes a problem
The products that succeed often pivot significantly from their MVP
Premature optimization wastes resources you can't afford to waste
Shipping fast and learning beats perfect architecture every time
Twitter ran on Ruby on Rails until they had millions of users. Instagram was a monolith at launch. Amazon started with a LAMP stack.
If they could start simple and scale later, so can you.
Ship the Boring Thing, Win the Market
Your competitive advantage isn't your architecture. It's your execution speed.
The startups that win:
Ship MVPs in 6-8 weeks, not 6 months
Learn from real users, not architectural debates
Iterate based on data, not engineering preferences
Solve customer problems, not distributed system problems
Build microservices when you have the scale problems and organizational structure that require them. Not before.
Chatbots are stateless. Agents accumulate state, make decisions, and run for minutes. Here are the 7 backend requirements that make or break production agents.
