This is basically Conway's Law in practice: microservices aren't created because of technical boundaries, but they emerge because organizations need team boundaries.
Or is there still too much conflict for the truly shareable objects?
It's really tiring trying to engage in curious discussion on HN. Seems people just want to make attempts at witty remarks and talk past people
It is perfectly conceivable that an alien species with different brain characteristics would draw their microservice boundaries at very different points, possibly varying by a whole order of magnitude in either direction.
I don't agree that there are organizational causes even though that's oft repeated as one of the main reasons. I have never seen a one-to-one relationship of microservices and teams irl. Most teams own many services and some services get touched by many teams. In big companies, there are also microservices with zero owners.
e.g., there's a reason that fancy buildings have maintenance hatches for humans
Less-competent devs and CTOs hear that Amazon & Google use it, then decide their 12-person team needs to rewrite their product as 5 separate services. I have encountered companies with 50 services where they needed 5, spending 60% of their dev velocity on overhead.
If you're contemplating microservices & haven't already nailed your business transaction boundaries, reliability mechanisms, idempotence, deployment management/ versioning, observability, testability and the operational discipline to run distributed systems you should just stop -- you have no freaking clue and you're going the wrong way.
What could be a sensible architecture for large orgs has become more of a cult-like behavior that drags everyone down.