Sam Gentile has been doing some useful questioning and thinking about Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) that lead me to think about the scope of SOA's.  Certainly SOAs are a useful architectural concept, but they are not an answer for all projects.  Currently SOAs are complex and difficult to implement and until the technology improves and it gets easier for developers to build, deploy and manage these systems, SOAs are likely to be most appropriate for a small number of enterprise projects. [Update: I've edited this post slightly to clarify some points after comments from John Cavnar-Jonson]

On the 'death of objects' and the SOA 'paradigm shift'
Same started off by saying:

SOA [is] one of those paradigm shifts - it really does mean the death of objects at least as we know them.

Before I could suggest that we fine any blogger who uses worn-out expressions like 'it's the death of [technology X]' and 'paradigm shift', Sam later clarifies that he didn't mean objects but OOA/OOD: 

I really meant OOA/OOD - how do you now design/decompose system design/requirements into architectures and I think it's less now about classic OOA/OOD and tightly coupled object design and more about a loosely coupled collection of components under a service.

I agree that proclaiming the death of objects was a misstatement. It may be more accurate to say that components, which are based around sharing types between parts of the system, are likely to become less of a primary focus with the rise of SOAs.  I agree with what Bryan Noye's says:

I don't think SOA means the death of OOP or Components at all. Just like most people build components using OOP, I think most people will built SOAs using OOP and Components. They are not competing concepts but complementary.

SOAs are important where there is a need to share messages and interoperate with unknown others
For my mind, SOAs provide the most benefits when there is a need to share data/information and  interoperate with other groups, possibly on unknown platforms, that you have no control over. There will still be plenty of applications that are built in the current n-tier component Enterprise Architectures. Talking with Jim Johnson at the PDC he made the point that the benefits of SOA with external partners may also be benefits within an organisation or service boundary. I agree, but I think the technology platform (e.g. Indigo) and management tools (e.g. whatever Microsoft are planning here) have a long way to go before these benefits outweigh those of using existing component-based technologies.

Interoperating with others often means going for a lowest common-denominator approach which is always going to perform slower than when you can go with a binary format and control both ends of the wire (as Sam mentioned, using ASMX just doesn't give the same performance as current 'binary typed' systems, which is why Indigo will do special things if it knows it is working in an all-Indigo environment).

SOAs are currently still complex and difficult to build and manage
SOAs are currently still complex and difficult to build and manage. They are complex because the standards are still being implemented (on a recent project I was on it took a major international bank nearly 3 months to convince a market-leading J2EE vendor to adopt SOAP headers and honour the 'mustUnderstand' attribute).  Newer standards like WS-Addressing are still being worked through and implemented.  It's difficult because of the layers of the technology that must be understood in order to build the systems.  Just read Clemens' description of his latest FABRIQ project to see the level of technology understanding, skill set and experience you need to build an SOA project today. As the tools develop and experience and awareness of SOA's grow they are likely to get easier and simpler to build, in the same way that client server and then n-tier were once considered complex and difficult but are now considered main stream.

Services are about outside, Objects/COM+/Enterprise Services/MSMQ are for inside
It's useful to be aware of boundaries as Don Box demonstrated at the PDC.  There are parts of SOA that are designed to be used on public organisational boundaries and some that are better deployed within an organisational boundary or even behind a service boundary.  Clemens Vasters' makes the distinction between 'near and far'.

When using services outside an organisational boundary there are benefits to using open standards and working with contracts and schema rather than type, since it's difficult to control what is at the other endpoint.  Enterprise Services and MSMQ provide useful functionality that isn't yet covered in WS-* standards, but the problems with these two approaches is that they often share binary type information or require a Microsoft box or adapter at the other end.  This doesn't mean they shouldn't be used in SOA, just that they are better used inside the organisation where it's possible to have more control over the communication and the endpoints.  Within the service boundary there's still a service to provide, and it's here that technologies like components/COM+/ES/MSMQ are likely to be just as useful as they are today.

Gregor Hohpe's Enterprise Integration Patterns provides useful SOA guidance
I think that Sam Gentile is right, there are some architectural changes that need to move towards SOA and message-oriented systems.  Luckily Gregor Hohpe has written Enterprise Integration Patterns - Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions a great book distilling his experience of these systems.  Hervey Wilson's reading it and its on Ingo Rammer's list of recommended books as well!.