when not to use microservices

When to say “no” to microservices: A conversation about simplicity

Imagine you are excited to design a new system. The blueprint is spread out, and my mind is full of exquisite modules, independent services, and seamless connections... The charm of the microservice architecture is so tempting, and it promises flexibility, scalability, and rapid iteration. But wait, was there a moment when a small voice asked: Is this really all necessary?

Today, let’s talk about those moments when you “shouldn’t use” microservices. This may sound counter-trend, but sometimes the smartest option is to go back to simplicity.

Where does the problem come from?

Microservices are not a silver bullet. It feels like a sophisticated set of tools tailor-made for complex, large-scale environments with many teams. But if you are only facing a small or medium-sized project, or the business logic itself is not complex, what will happen if you forcibly split the service? You'll find that managing communication between a bunch of services suddenly becomes a top priority. Network latency, data consistency, deployment complexity—problems that might not have been a problem in the first place all crop up.

Someone may ask: "But what if I need to expand in the future? Wouldn't it be easier to use microservices in advance?" This is like a family that has only three people but insists on living in a large villa with twenty rooms. Daily cleaning and maintenance consumes energy and forgets about life itself. Premature often means a huge burden in the present.

Walk into a specific situation

Let's look at a more life-like scenario. Suppose you are building a control system for a smart coffee machine. The core functionality is clear: receive commands, control the heating element, release coffee, and maybe add a milk froth function. Do you need to deploy three independent microservices for "receiving user orders", "controlling water pumps" and "managing temperature" respectively, and let them collaborate through network calls? This makes the system extremely vulnerable. A delay in one service can interrupt the making of a cup of coffee, and debugging a problem requires tracing three service logs.

At this time, a well-designed single application, or an architecture with clear modules but tight coupling, is more reliable, faster, and easier to maintain. All its "organs" work together in one "body", without the uncertain risks caused by the network. For many embedded or machine control scenarios, determinism often comes first.

Microservices also have “heavyweight” costs

Choosing microservices means accepting a whole set of “infrastructure taxes” that come with it. You need service discovery mechanisms, API gateways, more sophisticated monitoring and log aggregation. This is a huge operation and maintenance burden for small teams. Your energy should have been focused on the core business logic - such as how to make the response of the servo motor more accurate and the torque curve of the steering gear - but now it is dispersed to maintaining the stability of this distributed system.

Sometimes, simple library or module-based calls are much more efficient than remote calls across the network. Especially in the field of mechanical control with high real-time requirements, the response time of a service is measured in milliseconds or even microseconds. Every unnecessary network hop adds uncertainty and latency.

When should you stick to simple?

Here are a few questions you can ask yourself:

• Is your business domain really complex enough to require clear service boundaries?
• Are your team size and organizational structure sufficient to support the independent development and deployment of multiple services?
• Are your system scalability requirements really beyond what a monolithic or modular architecture can easily handle?
• Are non-functional requirements (e.g. fault tolerance, technology heterogeneity) more important than development speed and simplicity?

If most of the answers are no, then saying "no" to microservices is not a step back, but a focus and pragmatism. It allows you to use your resources wisely.

At Kpower, we understand this complexity. Our work often involves combining precise motion control, reliable power transmission and intelligent system logic. We have seen too many projects that failed not because the technology was not advanced enough, but because the architecture was too complex. The right tool is used in the right place. This is the core of engineering wisdom.

Ultimately, architectural choices serve business goals, not the other way around. Whether you are designing a precision robotic arm joint or planning an enterprise software system, the principle is the same: start from real needs, not from popular technology. The next time you are attracted by the gorgeous description of microservices, maybe stop and ask yourself: Do I really need it? The answer may be simpler than you think.

After all, the best system is often the one that can complete tasks stably while allowing you to sleep well at night. Simplicity is often the most difficult and most worthwhile quality to pursue.

Established in 2005, Kpower has been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology, Kpower integrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions. Kpower has delivered professional drive system solutions to over 500 enterprise clients globally with products covering various fields such as Smart Home Systems, Automatic Electronics, Robotics, Precision Agriculture, Drones, and Industrial Automation.