One of software's recurring debates is whether to build an application as a single unified codebase, a monolith, or as many small independent services, microservices. Microservices are fashionable, which is exactly why so many teams reach for them too early and pay for the complexity long before they need the benefit.
A monolith is one application, deployed as a unit. It is simpler to build, test, deploy, and reason about, especially for a small team and an early product. The downside appears at scale: as the application and the team grow very large, a single codebase can become a bottleneck, hard to change safely and slow to deploy. But most products never reach that scale.
Microservices break an application into small, independently deployable services, each owning a piece of the whole. At large scale, with many teams, this allows parts to be developed, deployed, and scaled independently. The cost is real and immediate: distributed systems are far more complex to build, test, monitor, and operate, and that complexity is a tax you pay from day one, whether or not you need the benefit yet.
For most new products, the right answer is to start as a well-structured monolith and extract services only when a real, specific need for them emerges, scale, team size, differing requirements. Adopting microservices prematurely is one of the most common and expensive architectural mistakes. Build for the problem you have, not the one you imagine you will have.
Start simple. Split only when the pain is real.
This is general educational information about building software, not specific technical or business advice.