In March 2023, Amazon Prime Video published a case study that sent shockwaves through the software architecture community: they migrated a critical system from microservices back to a monolith and achieved a 90% cost reduction. This wasn't some small startup making a rookie mistake—this was Amazon, the company that literally wrote the book on microservices architecture, publicly admitting that their distributed system was over-engineered. Now in 2025, this reversal has become a trend. Companies are rediscovering what grizzled engineers have been saying for years: boring technology wins, premature distribution is the root of much evil, and sometimes the best architecture is the one that fits in a developer's head.
The Amazon Prime Video Revelation: 90% Cost Savings
Amazon Prime Video's engineering team was running a video quality analysis tool that monitored streams for defects across millions of concurrent viewers. Initially architected as a distributed microservices system with separate services for media conversion, defect detection, and orchestration, the system worked—but at enormous cost and complexity.
The Prime Video Migration Results
The team's conclusion: "Microservices are a good default, but not the best for every use case. Always measure your architecture against your specific needs."
What Went Wrong with Microservices
The Prime Video team's microservices architecture suffered from three critical problems that many distributed systems share:
The Three Fatal Flaws
1. Network Call Overhead
Every microservice boundary meant data serialization, network transmission, deserialization, and potential network failures. What should have been nanosecond function calls became millisecond network roundtrips—multiplied across millions of requests per second.
2. AWS Step Functions Cost Explosion
Orchestrating distributed services with AWS Step Functions worked elegantly in theory. In practice, at scale, the per-state-transition pricing model meant astronomical AWS bills. The orchestration layer cost more than the compute doing actual work.
3. Scaling Bottlenecks
Individual microservices had different scaling characteristics. The media conversion service needed GPU instances; the defect detector needed CPU; orchestration needed neither. Scaling them independently created resource waste and coordination nightmares.
The Monolith Migration Trend: Who Else Is Reverting
Amazon Prime Video wasn't alone. Throughout 2023-2025, a quiet revolution has been happening: engineering teams at scale are discovering that their microservices architectures are costing them time, money, and developer sanity—and they're consolidating back into monoliths.
Case Studies: The Return to Simplicity
Segment: From 140+ Microservices to Consolidated Architecture
Problem: Managing 140+ microservices created more operational overhead than business value. Teams spent more time managing Kubernetes configs than building features.
Solution: Consolidated related services into domain-based modules within larger applications. Not quite a pure monolith, but dramatically reduced service count.
Result: 50% reduction in operational complexity, faster feature development, easier onboarding for new engineers.
Istio: The Service Mesh That Ate Itself
Problem: Istio itself was built as microservices (Pilot, Mixer, Citadel, Galley). The irony: a tool meant to manage microservices complexity was too complex to manage.
Solution: Istio 1.5 (2020) merged all components into a single "istiod" process, reducing deployment complexity by 90%.
Result: Easier installation, reduced resource consumption, fewer failure modes. Even service mesh vendors admit monoliths are simpler.
Shopify: Modular Monolith Strategy
Approach: Rather than splitting into microservices, Shopify invested heavily in a "modular monolith"—clear internal boundaries, but deployed as a single application.
Philosophy: "You can have modularity without distribution. Boundaries don't require network calls."
Result: Handles Black Friday/Cyber Monday traffic (80,000+ requests/second) with a monolithic Rails application. Boring technology at massive scale.
The Real Cost of Microservices: Beyond Infrastructure
Cloud bills and AWS Step Functions costs are the visible expenses. The hidden costs of microservices architectures often dwarf the infrastructure spending: developer time, operational complexity, debugging nightmares, and organizational overhead.
Deployment Time: 2 Hours to 5 Minutes
Microservices Deployment Hell
- Total Time: 2+ hours for production deployment
- Steps Required: Build 47 services, run tests for each, coordinate versions, update service mesh configs, rollout progressively
- Coordination: Multiple teams need to synchronize releases
- Rollback: Complex—which services need reverting?
- Testing: End-to-end tests require spinning up entire distributed system
- Developer Experience: "I changed one line. Why is CI/CD taking 90 minutes?"
Monolith Deployment Simplicity
- Total Time: 5-15 minutes for production deployment
- Steps Required: Build one application, run one test suite, deploy one artifact
- Coordination: Single deployment pipeline, no cross-team synchronization
- Rollback: Simple—revert to previous version, done
- Testing: Single process to test, no network mocking required
- Developer Experience: "I changed one line. It's deployed in 5 minutes."
Managing 47 Services vs. 1 Monolith
The Operational Overhead Reality Check
47 Microservices Means:
- • 47 separate codebases to maintain
- • 47 CI/CD pipelines to configure and debug
- • 47 different dependency trees to update
- • 47 potential failure points to monitor
- • 47 security patches to coordinate
- • 47 sets of logs to search through when debugging
- • Distributed tracing infrastructure (Jaeger, Zipkin)
- • Service mesh (Istio, Linkerd) with its own complexity
- • API gateway, load balancers, service discovery
- • Inter-service authentication and authorization
1 Monolith Means:
- • 1 codebase with clear module boundaries
- • 1 CI/CD pipeline
- • 1 dependency tree to manage
- • 1 application to monitor
- • 1 security patch deployment
- • 1 log stream to search
- • Standard logging (no distributed tracing needed)
- • No service mesh required
- • Simple load balancer configuration
- • In-process function calls (no auth overhead)
When Microservices Actually Make Sense
This isn't an argument that microservices are always wrong—it's an argument that they're usually premature. There are genuine use cases where distributed systems architecture is the right choice. But they're rarer than Silicon Valley conference talks would suggest.
The True Scale Threshold
Microservices Make Sense When:
- You Have True Scale Problems: Not "we might scale someday"—you're currently serving millions of requests per second and your monolith genuinely can't handle it even with vertical scaling and optimization.
- Independent Scaling Requirements: Different parts of your system have wildly different resource needs. Your video transcoding service needs GPUs; your API layer needs CPU; your analytics needs memory. And these imbalances are costing real money.
- Organizational Boundaries: You have 50+ engineering teams, and coordinating deployments across them is genuinely harder than managing distributed systems. Conway's Law working as intended.
- Technology Diversity Requirements: You legitimately need different languages/runtimes for different components (real-time processing in Go, ML models in Python, legacy systems in Java) and can't consolidate.
- Security/Compliance Isolation: Regulatory requirements demand physical separation of certain data or processing (PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR) that can't be achieved through logical isolation.
Red Flags: You're Doing Microservices for the Wrong Reasons
- "It looks good on my resume" — Architecture decisions should serve business needs, not career advancement
- "Netflix and Amazon do it" — You're not Netflix. You don't have their scale, their engineering resources, or their problems
- "We might need to scale in the future" — Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Solve today's problems today
- "Microservices are more modern" — Modern doesn't mean better. Boring technology that works beats exciting technology that fails
- "We want team autonomy" — Module boundaries in a monolith can provide autonomy without distribution complexity
The Modular Monolith: Best of Both Worlds
The emerging consensus among experienced architects isn't "microservices vs monolith"—it's "start with a well-structured monolith, extract services only when you have quantifiable evidence that distribution solves a real problem."
Building Monoliths That Don't Become Big Balls of Mud
Modular Monolith Best Practices
1. Domain-Driven Design Boundaries
Organize code around business domains (Orders, Payments, Inventory) not technical layers (Controllers, Services, Models). Each domain has its own folder structure and can theoretically become a microservice if needed.
src/
├── domains/
│ ├── orders/
│ │ ├── api/
│ │ ├── services/
│ │ ├── models/
│ │ └── tests/
│ ├── payments/
│ └── inventory/2. Enforced Module Boundaries
Use architectural linting tools (NestJS modules, Go internal packages, Java modules) to prevent cross-domain coupling. Orders module can't directly import from Inventory—must go through defined interfaces.
3. Database Schemas Per Domain
Even in a shared database, separate schemas per domain. Orders schema can't directly query Payments tables. This makes extraction to separate databases easier if you eventually need microservices.
4. Event-Driven Communication (In-Process)
Modules communicate via events—but in-memory event buses, not Kafka. If you later need distribution, swap the event bus for a message queue without changing module code.
Developer Experience: The Hidden Cost Multiplier
The most underestimated cost of microservices isn't cloud bills or operational overhead—it's the cognitive load on developers. A well-designed monolith fits in a developer's head. A distributed system with 47 services never will.
Onboarding Time: 2 Weeks vs. 3 Months
Monolith: Day 1 Productivity
- Day 1: Clone repository, run docker-compose up, you have the entire system running locally
- Day 2: Make a small change, see it reflected immediately. Understand one codebase structure
- Week 1: Ship first feature. Understand how modules connect
- Week 2: Fully productive. Can navigate entire codebase with IDE "go to definition"
A senior developer quote: "I onboarded to a Rails monolith in 3 days and shipped features. I onboarded to a microservices system in 3 months and still didn't understand the full architecture."
Microservices: Month 3 Confusion
- Week 1: Clone 15 repositories. Fight with Kubernetes setup. "How do I run this locally?"
- Week 2: Finally got dev environment working. Still don't understand which services call which
- Month 1: Make a change. Break 3 other services. Didn't know they depended on the field you renamed
- Month 3: Still discovering new services. Architecture diagrams are outdated. "Who owns the notification-worker-v2 service?"
The reality: Most companies with microservices have no single person who understands the entire system architecture.
Debugging: Stack Trace vs. Distributed Trace
Bug Report: "User can't complete checkout"
Debugging in a Monolith:
- Search logs for user ID
- Find exception with full stack trace
- Click "Go to Definition" in IDE
- See the bug in context
- Fix it, deploy, done
- Time: 20 minutes
Debugging in Microservices:
- Check API Gateway logs
- Find trace ID, search in Jaeger
- Trace shows 12 service hops
- 9th service timed out—why?
- Check that service's logs
- It tried calling another service
- That service was rate limiting
- Why? Configuration change 2 weeks ago
- Who made it? Check git blame across 5 repos
- Time: 3 hours (if you're lucky)
The Boring Technology Principle
In 2015, Dan McKinley wrote "Choose Boring Technology," arguing that every company gets a limited number of "innovation tokens" to spend on unproven tech. Most companies waste their tokens on architectural complexity instead of actual business innovation. Nearly a decade later, this principle is being rediscovered as teams migrate away from microservices.
Why Boring Wins
Boring = Well-Understood
PostgreSQL has been battle-tested for 25+ years. Every edge case is documented. Stack Overflow has answers for everything. A monolithic Rails/Django/Laravel app? Millions of developers have built them successfully.
Boring = Debuggable
When something breaks in boring technology, the debugging path is well-worn. When something breaks in a novel distributed system, you're pioneering new territory—exciting for engineering blog posts, terrible for production incidents.
Boring = Hirable
It's easy to hire developers who know monolithic Python/Ruby/Java. It's hard to hire developers who understand your bespoke Kubernetes service mesh configuration with custom sidecars.
Boring = Operational Simplicity
Boring technology has mature tooling, monitoring, and operational practices. You're not inventing deployment strategies; you're following runbooks that thousands of companies have validated.
Real-World Migration Strategies
If you're currently drowning in microservices complexity, you're not stuck. Several companies have successfully navigated back to monolithic or modular monolithic architectures. The migration requires discipline, but it's achievable.
The Gradual Consolidation Approach
Step-by-Step Migration Plan
- Measure Current State: Baseline your deployment times, operational complexity, cloud costs, and developer satisfaction. You need numbers to prove the migration's value.
- Identify Chatty Services: Find services that make frequent inter-service calls. These are prime consolidation candidates—they're paying the highest network overhead tax.
- Start with Related Domains: Merge closely-related services first (user-service + user-profile-service + user-settings-service = users-monolith). Don't try to merge everything at once.
- Shared Database Phase: Temporarily point both old services and new monolith to same database. Run them in parallel while you validate behavior.
- Traffic Switching: Gradually route traffic from old services to new monolith. Use feature flags or percentage-based routing.
- Retire Old Services: Once new monolith handles 100% of traffic for 2-4 weeks without issues, decommission the old microservices.
- Repeat and Measure: Consolidate next cluster of services. Measure improvements at each step to maintain momentum and executive support.
The Future: Pragmatism Over Dogma
The 2025 architecture landscape is moving away from religious adherence to microservices or monoliths toward pragmatic assessment of what actually works for specific situations. The pendulum is swinging back, but smart teams aren't swinging all the way—they're landing on "boring technology, clear boundaries, distribution only when necessary."
Need Help Simplifying Your Architecture?
XYZBytes specializes in pragmatic architecture decisions. We've helped companies migrate from microservices hell to maintainable monoliths—and helped others extract true microservices from monoliths when scale actually demands it. We don't sell trendy patterns; we solve real problems with boring technology that works.
Conclusion: The Right Tool for the Right Job
Microservices aren't evil. Monoliths aren't obsolete. The mistake the industry made in 2015-2020 was treating microservices as a default architecture rather than a specialized tool for specific scale and organizational problems.
Amazon Prime Video's 90% cost savings by migrating to a monolith should be a wake-up call: if Amazon—the company that invented modern microservices architecture—admits that distribution was premature for that use case, maybe your startup with 10 engineers and 1,000 users should start with a monolith too.
The future of software architecture isn't microservices or monoliths. It's boring technology, clear boundaries, and the wisdom to know when complexity is justified. Start simple. Scale when you have evidence you need to. And remember: the best architecture is the one your team can actually maintain.
Tags:
Share this article: