2 ms·

I'm not saying it can't work, but that there are risks involved. I have worked for several companies ranging from local startups to global enterprise (not FAAN

I'm not saying it can't work, but that there are risks involved. I have worked for several companies ranging from local startups to global enterprise (not FAANG). Each company tried the silo approach when they migrated to micro services and it caused significant delays and dependencies. They would have been better off if they focused more on larger domain services with fewer external dependencies. I am open to the idea that Amazon has been able to avoid these problems, but it's clearly not a silver bullet. In general I have to say I'm sceptical about comparisons with FAANG, because they live in a completely separate part of the technology sector. They have income similar to small countries and can live with inefficiencies that can break a startup.

randomdata 3y ago
> Each company tried the silo approach when they migrated to micro services Doesn't that go without saying? That's literally what micro services is: The siloing of services, just as service is provided in the macro economy, but within the micro economy of a single organization. Without silos, your service is monolithic.
DanielHB 3y ago
The problem I see are big companies with several products trying to break down silos between the products to share some infrastructure (be it code, libs, actual cloud infra, support teams, design systems etc) when there is very little overlap between the different products. All in some grand hope of reducing costs by sharing things. It almost always ends with overly generic solutions that are harder to use, takes more people to support, can't be fitted well in most cases and that everyone involved hates (causing employee attrition). This is different from having cohesive architecture within a single product.