this is pretty close to the process we have here at <undisclosed bay area company>
And indeed, if you had to go through all this it means they very seriously considered you for the position.
Now, the expenses they made mean little (even for a far poorer company) compared to the mistake of recruiting someone that did not fit.
There's many reasons why someone would not be selected and sometimes it's just that people didn't "click" really.
I know that most of the time, recruiters word is "if you're not sure, better not hire than to make a mistake" and sometimes people who could have been accepted and made a positive contribution to the team get refused. There's even a bit of luck in that.
Thanks for sharing, though. I've never applied for Apple - albeit I guess engineering jobs get more tech stuff in the facetime interviews ;)
Why is this the case? As a hiring manager, I often lean heavily towards the "hire them and if they don't work out, let them go" camp. I've gotten a lot of great teammates that way and only one that didn't work out. But the one that didn't work out killed the interview and was ridiculously smart. All the ones that did poorly in the interview and had little experience ended up being some of my better engineers.
Because there's a prevailing idea that once you hire someone, there are huge legal and logistical barriers to letting him go. I don't know how true it is, but that's what people believe.
theres a lot of reasons, its more expensive to hire, form and fire than not hire for one.
Then, there are relationships with colleagues and between employees regardless of performance, if you fire very rarely then your employees are happier, everyone's happier and performance is better.
Basically, you always take the smartest risk you can, and quite often, that means no hire when you're not too sure.
"Now, the expenses they made mean little (even for a far poorer company) compared to the mistake of recruiting someone that did not fit."
Please explain. I hear this a lot but it's never substantiated other than by vague references to employees being able to sue for being fired. Yes, some employees do sue, but there generally is no ground to do so, even when the employer has misbehaved. In my experience, it's actually incredibly easy and cheap to fire someone. You might lose a couple months' salary, but generally even that won't be a total loss as you're likely to get at least some decent work even out of a bad hire.
This depends on the job. If other people can do their job without one who has been fired then it's quite cheap. On the other hand, in software industry, there are often teams of specialist with different expertise and their jobs depend on one another. In such a case, firing one will interfere with every one else and you will take a loss in decreased productivity for everyone. E.g. you fire a member of a 5 people team on a project with 100 people total. So that team productivity drops 10% (it was a bad hire after all so there is not much loss) and, hence, the whole project slows by 10%. Now you pay the remaining 99 people 10% more to get the same work done.
Same here. I always cringe a little bit when I see people breakdown their time to an imaginary monetary loss. This way of looking at things comes with a pretty heavy dose of narcissism if you ask me. It says "People would be paying me money for what I'm doing for free right now; look how much I'm sacrificing." While there might be quite a few people out there who could get away with billing their time at any given hour of the day, most of us have to establish relationships that facilitate a mutually-beneficial value exchange.
Luis might have very well been looking for work during this time, but by phrasing it as an outright monetary loss, he exaggerates his sacrifice and gives an appeal to the reader to condemn what Apple "did to him."I believe this is the reason also for the "700 Billion". Oh well. Sucks to be rejected. Natural reaction
Yeah I wouldn't quantify how much money I personally lost, but it's absolutely fair to specify how many hours of time were lost. I value my free time. That's time I could be learning a new skill, working on a product, or just having fun. Either way, it's time I gave up for nothing.
I understand wanting to really vet someone first; but it really does seem kind of excessive how long these interview processes are becoming. It's not as if the author were applying for a Japanese salaryman (read: lifetime) employment position. Why not do a normal interview, bring them on as a contractor, see how it goes, and then make your final decision? It'd be a bit of a risk for the candidate if relocation were involved and remote work wasn't possible, but that would be on them.
> but it's absolutely fair to specify how many hours of time were lost
I don't think it is. First of all, the hours aren't "lost", they are "cost of getting a job" - you don't interview without at least considering the possibility of not getting an offer. Anyone who expects to get a job after every interview they do is delusional. It's like the time you spend pitching your services to a client who then decides not to hire you - not "lost" time, but "cost of business".
As a person who is a freelancer and also employs freelancers, you're right in a way. But in another way, you have to admit it's probably not OK to just say "Hey guys, off for two weeks to write a blog post, oh and if I decide to do a a few hours of time when I feel like it, you better pay for it."
It's just not realistic. Like the guy above you said, it comes down to time and I can sympathize with that. But to imagine you always have someone on hand right there willing to pay for your hours of work is where I am like "ok, wait, hold on."
If his time was too valuable, he always had the choice to reject the interview and save that $6000. He chose to bet $6000 for a ~70% chance of getting a $200,000 job (or whatever). Sometimes bets fail. It's frustrating, but life goes on.
Same here. S/he sure does come of as very butthurt (is there a better, less "offensive" word for that?). It wasn't a "shallow 'no'", it was just a "no", what else did s/he expect (companies usually don't give usable feedback because of legal reasons)?! S/he seems hurt to get a "no" after 6 hours of in-person interviews, but obviously, if it was a guaranteed "yes", you wouldn't even need an interview!
In other words, just another unsuccessful interview, nothing unusual here, nor anything that Apple did badly or wrong.
I feel like that's a big misunderstood thing in our community. There is a talent shortage - in the sense that companies are always ready to hire someone in the top ~10%. That's what talent means in this context. Google and Facebook will always be more than willing to hire the people who build frameworks in their spare time or contribute to the Linux kernel. There is however no shortage of one trick pony PHP developers, because by mathematical definition they are the bottom 90% (see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html).
(the question of whether companies actually need employees of that caliber for building mobile apps is a entirely different one)
"Wanted: Someone with the time-management skills to get to the top 10% of developers. Must be willing to show up for 8 rounds of on-site interviews and be prepared for deep philosophical discussions on the merits of mergesort."
Well, there have been a few instances in the past where I've been desperate to hire and I've brought people in against my better judgement. I can tell you it sucks having to look someone in the eye and let them go because they couldn't keep up with the rest of the team. Once you've had to do it a few times as a manager, you become more conservative with your hiring.
Sure, pushing pixels around is easy, but when you're up against a deadline and the app is crashing in a subtle way, you need engineers who have solid debugging chops. Not everybody does.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's the manager's job to secure enough time for a product to get developed by the team or reduce the scope of what's going to be developed by working with whomever is setting these deadlines. If you need to magically speed up your development to meet the deadline or work extra hours, the manager has failed at doing the above, something that's a core part of his job. In some really bad companies, the manager won't have a choice in doing either, and you're in a situation where the deadline was simply unreasonable. In those cases, I can excuse the manager. Mostly though, deadlines are artificial and it really doesn't matter if they're met or not. Even if it does matter, the manager is getting paid a whole lot of money to manage both the team and the expectations of those who care about the deadlines. Making the team work overtime is thus a complete failure on his part both to the team and to those above him.
I don't disagree with you that death march schedules are bad, but I don't think I was making a case for them. :)
Another way to put it is that the manager's job is also to hire the best team possible, and there is a wide variance in skill levels of engineers. All other things being equal, hiring engineers who are more adept is a big advantage to the company.
This is rationalizing. Just because some stuffy suit caught a glance at his profile and nixed him doesn't mean the team he would work with has any issue with it.
As with all interviews, you gotta do a little dance to get in, but they're not reflective of daily experience.
Wouldn't they have seen that before they brought you on-site? Isn't that how they found you? I'm a little surprised this was the reason; we had beer bashes all the time at Apple.
To play devils advocate, Linkedin is professional profile site. Personally I would not put a photo of myself holding a drink for this reason and agree or not, its reasonable to expect people wont like this. If someone said the same cause they saw a Facebook picture of you holding a beer then I would be in absolute agreement.
On a whim, I recently updated my LinkedIn picture to a photo of myself in a multi-coloured clown wig. This put an immediate end to all messages from recruiters.
They only grep the CVs for words, if you put you're a lion tamer, archeologist, but has the word PHP in your CV (or something similar) you'll get a flood of IT jobs
Where do you draw the line? is it OK for me to have a shaggy beard? How about long hair? Tattoos?
My personality is my personality, and when you hire me you're going to get the whole thing. If you can't handle it, I rather you don't even talk to me in the first place.
I look forward to a future where nobody cares about this stuff.
I once worked for a design agency that was building the website of a major super PAC run by the son of a governor that most people on HN probably despise. I was tasked with turning the designer's PSDs into a Wordpress site and one section was bios of all the officers.
My contact at the client gathered up all the photos and bios and emailed them to me. Maybe 25% of the photos were professional headshots. The majority were just crappy cell phone pictures.
The rest were people at parties holding a beer. I emailed my contact to make sure he wanted me to use these and he told me to go ahead. Sure enough, a day after we went live I get a pissed-off call from him demanding to know why I used those photos.
I also want to work with religious nuts, boring fuckwads, skiing junkies, food fetishists, and closet crocheters, as well as fellow social drinkers; and I want them all to be able to keep their oddities out of the workplace. It doesn't suggest a human amount of social intelligence to have a divisive image on your public profile.
how did you find out you were not given the job because of a beer in your Linkedin picture? - I never wanted to work for apple, but if this story is true it's very sad
Is there more legitimacy/recourse to pay another company for services than to hire an employee (with the skill to back it up) to do the same work in-house? That level of indirection sounds inefficient...
Sometimes there is, yes. If you pay another company for services, it's strictly business. Hire an employee, and all sorts of primate emotions, politics, laws and so forth come into the picture. Sometimes that can more than outweigh the cost of the extra level of indirection.
On the bright side, this is one of the things that stops the entire economy being swallowed up by a handful of megacorporations.
I still don't understand, but ok, thanks. That's a great descriptor of Apple (of which there are many), but doesn't point anywhere toward a rationale for titling an interview experience as "700 billion". I'm not trying to say titles need to make logical sense, but they usually should make some sense
1. OP wanted to emphasize what it is like to interview at a company which has a lot of resources to invest into interviews - one of the things mentioned was committing multiple people for a full day to just interview him, as well as willing to bear a high initial cost (travel, hotel) to interview him.
2. OP wanted to detail the interview process of such a financially successful company: who they hire, why they hire that person, how they find and select candidates that have contributed to that high financial success.
3. OP wanted a crafty title beyond "My interview at Apple"
4. More likely to be clicked on, shared, commented or voted on (i.e clickbait).
when i interviewed, at the end of the day, the dude went out of his way to tell me they'd let me know, no matter what, either way, in a few days. Then crickets .. i still resent how he was so insistent that i would hear from them. Just be honest jackass har har.
Posting as a French engineer who moved to the Bay Area a bit over 4 years ago, and has worked at a few companies of varying sizes and success in that time period:
Silicon Valley as an engineer is a demanding environment to be in, and like many such environments getting in is quite a challenge. As an outsider, you are at many disadvantages: you don't know the culture, you don't know how things get done, you don't know who to talk to and who will waste your time, and so on. So to get in, not only are you fighting against all of these obstacles, but you also have to perform at the level which is expected of everyone, which might be higher than what you're used to.
This means that the odds of getting in on your first try are quite, quite low. If your goal is really to make it there, you have to treat it as a numbers game - after 5, 10, 20 tries, you'll probably get in. Or maybe if your dream is to work at Google/Facebook/etc., then the best way to do it is to first start working for a smaller, lesser known company that's having a harder time hiring. Make yourself a name there, volunteer to give some talks, post some open source projects that'll bring your name at the top of Hacker News for a day, and after a couple of years, knock again at the door of your dream company. Or maybe they'll end up knocking at your door again very soon. Recruiters know very well that the number of false negatives is quite high, and that people can change very fast.
If you want to take part, you have to put in a lot of effort and personal work, and expect things to take time- you have to stay humble, and you have to keep pushing. I think it's worth it. Some people don't believe that it is, and that's completely fine- but you have to know whether you want it or not. If you really do, then don't give up on the first obstacle.
I always find it a little funny as a manager when a prospective individual contributor asks me what a typical day is like for me. For me? I sit in meetings all day, thanks for asking. Would you like to know what a typical day would be like for you? :)
Finding out you spend all day in meetings still tells you something, especially with a few follow-up questions. Who do you spend your time meeting with? What about? How many people are typically involved? How long do meetings last?
(That said, most of the people I've been interviewed by were devs, so this was not really ever an issue.)
Yeah, when I say I spend a lot of my day in meetings, I usually get a blank look, but it's an opportunity to riff and expand on what the environment is like at the company. For example, part of my job is to protect engineer's time. One reason I go to meetings to report status and collect relevant information to condense and pass on to the team.
I like that, it's a good question. Nobody's actually asked me that, which is odd because one question I like to ask all candidates I interview is the inverse ("If you could change one thing about $our_product, etc"). You'd think somebody would have flipped it around on me!
It usually throws the interviewer off, sometimes they need to take a long time to answer, which can be good or bad, but its up to you to decide how honest they're really being
I agree. Having a few questions in mind is always a good idea, though I tend to prefer discussion starters rather than a simple, straightforward question. It gives you the opportunity of a follow-up, which let's you talk about a topic of _your_ choosing. My usual rule of thumb for end-of-interview discussions is that it should last until the interviewer suddenly realizes time's up. Then you know that they really enjoyed the conversation.
In general though, I'd avoid HR-related questions. They are almost always likely to generate a generic response, almost every candidate will ask similar questions, and they can easily be answered by your HR department contact.
I would highly recommend that candidates do research on the company. If you do, and you are truly interested what the company is making, specific questions will come up. Be prepared to ask followups and drill in. In my experience, this can have a larger impact than the candidates answers (it's well known that people like to talk more than they like to listen :) This is a way for a candidate demonstrate your intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm.
I've seriously been asked by a candidate in an interview what our product was, and not just once. You took a day off work to come here and you couldn't even look at our website? On the other hand, I've had candidates who proactively identified some of the internal challenges we were currently dealing with "but how do you deal with X?" which is impressive.
More importantly, this decision to work at a company is going to have a bigger impact on the candidate than the hiring manager. People forget that the interview is a two way process. It's important to find out whether this company is going to be a place you will enjoy. Use questions as a way to figure out what the environment is like. Look for subtext in the answers.
Somewhat off-topic, but not too much: Are you the Jeff Bush that worked at Be for awhile? If so, you were in on my interview there. (For the sake of other readers, I got the job. But then Be went out of business seven months later and I got laid off, along with almost everybody else.)
This conversation is reminding me of why I washed out of the Bay Area high-tech scene. I was able to do it, but at too high a price. I'd rather work with slightly less smart people on much less shiny products, but living in a place where I can afford to buy a house, and with enough brainpower left over so that I don't have to live for my job.
You know, I really botched that opportunity at Be. I was really in awe of you guys. I had been on the outskirts of the tech biz for my whole career at that point. I didn't know that there were that many amazingly smart people in the whole world, let alone in one company.
It didn't help any that Be's heart was already broken by the time I got there. I don't think anybody really believed that the eVilla was going to be a success. But I could have overcome that problem, if I'd been smart.
Ultimately, I'm just not cut out to work in the rarified air that you work in. I can certainly see the appeal, though.
I think you're being tough on yourself. A lot of life is timing, and unfortunately, in retrospect, you came in at a bad time. The eVilla was a challenging project, hampered by a lot of decisions that were out of our control (it was a shitty hardware design due to ruthless cost cutting). At the time, I believed there was a kernel of a good idea, but it just didn't come together. I feel bad that overall the experience seems to have been negative for you.
Many of the people who worked on that project ended up back together as part of the team that built Android: Dianne Hackborn, Jean Baptiste Queru, and many more (BeIA actually had a early version of Binder in it). Not immediately though: people who weathered the layoffs ended up being acquired by Palm. Mired in politics, I don't think the OS they built there ever shipped on any hardware, but, as I understand, many of the ideas from that project ended up in Android. The other big contingent of Be-ites, which I followed, went to Danger, which Andy Rubin had co-founded. After that flamed out, many people from there ended up at Android as well. I'm pleased to see Android's success, especially given the string of failures that many of the team members experienced over the prior 8+ years. Many people may not realize that.
To your other point: I periodically go running at lunch with a group that I work with. They are much more serious than I am and have been doing it longer. I'm not at all a great runner and fall behind pretty quickly. I don't aspire to be, and have no expectations I ever will. But I like to run with them because it motivates me to work harder and it's more fun with go with other people than by myself, even if it points out my shortcomings. Most people who seem smart just have spent a lot of time doing something. Personally, I think it's important not to be intimidated by people who you think are better at you than something. You're also probably better than you think. In those days I think was the type of interviewer everybody here is complaining about, so you probably did alright. :)
Yes, I am very aware of the post-Be trajectories of all you guys. I've been following you all since then. Almost nobody remembers Be anymore, but I still get mileage in job interviews out of having former coworkers on the Android team. (heh.)
I would say that my time at Be was a failure, but that it was also entirely my fault. I was often so intimidated by you guys that I was afraid to speak up. I would have gotten over it eventually, but not in that environment, what with our impending doom and periodic layoffs hanging over our heads. I didn't enjoy working on the eVilla, and I don't think I was alone in that respect. But I could have put my head down and performed a workmanlike job anyway, while cultivating contacts amongst all you guys who were dribbling out to bigger and better things. But I let my intimidation get in the way and made myself a liability.
I am well aware I could get back into the big leagues if I wanted to. I am a much better programmer now than I was then. I clawed my way in the first time, I could do it again. But I really don't think the Bay Area is for me. I recently bought a house for 180k that would have likely cost a million bucks out there. I am happy with my piddly little jobs in the B leagues where I don't have to try all that hard.
Perhaps you just have more perspective now. I think back to previous jobs where I was so stressed out and the problems seemed so important. Looking back at the craters that are all that remains of those companies, they weren't as much as I thought they were. That's not to say it wasn't worth doing: there were some exciting times and I met some great people that I enjoyed working with. But I probably focused too much on the wrong things.
If I were to start interviewing for a position now, I think the last thing on my mind would be trying to find out 'right' questions to ask. I'm either really interested in the position being offered or I'm not. If I am, I've already got tons of questions borne straight out of that interest. If not, I'm looking for the quickest exit I can make without burning any bridges. I don't want to waste time any more than Apple does.
The author got it right when he mentioned at the end that he was "talking to the people who implemented the original OSX UI". That's the sort of thing that would make me interested in working for you. Personally, I don't care about a company's 'interview process'. That's just filler crap they use to get people talking. I don't need help to get me talking about what I do. I'll answer questions, but as soon as I can, I'll be grilling you about all kinds of stuff. I'm in question-asking mode by default.
I usually just ask the questions from the Joel Test. If they score high enough I get to other questions specific to their company.
Back to OP: I personally don't see myself working for a place that needs to talk to me for more than 1 hr before making a decision. If they take this long to decide on a hire, imagine how long and grueling are their technology decisions.
This all sounds like a typical 'cultural fit' screening process. I can't speak to SV firms, but many consulting/banking firms use the same technique. It can be very frustrating at times, as you never get to find out what went wrong, especially if the interview itself felt like it went very smoothly. I just finished a long string of interviews for consulting and product management positions, and there is nothing worse than to get a 'no, please try again later' without any feedback as to how you can improve.
At the end of the day, it comes down to being able to truly connect with your interviewers and breaking out of the typical question-answer format. It sounds like you almost reached that point - I'm not sure if the lunch was a standard thing they did with all applicants, but it did seem like they were really interested in you. It could be that the process came down to a handful of equally desirable candidates, at which point luck plays a large role in deciding who gets the job. I would definitely keep in touch with everyone you met, and apply again at the next opportunity.
For what it's worth, I recently left a position at Apple and I am the complete opposite of the "culture." Two key differences emerged in my reading of the author's process and my own, which I think boil down to differences between DevPub and where I worked, in what they call Internet Services in Cue's org. That's a pretty wide org, so there's vast gulfs even within, just based on the way the org was put together.
My culture screen was in-person, while I was being interviewed technically. Part of their process was getting to know me. I'm relaxed in interviews, joke around, and have a good time because at the end of the day, we need to like what we do. I find that this confidence has opened a lot of doors for me, but I do have to work very hard to project it given my internal strife. I often find that interviewers are more nervous than me, frankly, because as an industry we tend to toss people in a room who are themselves suffering from imposter syndrome and ask them to gauge someone they've never met with very little interview training. I was interviewing for one company on my third day.
I am the polar opposite of what I would consider to be someone who "fits Apple culture," in general, but it's worth remembering that there are vastly different cultures in different areas. I'm fat, I don't dress well, I'm largely unkempt if left to my own devices, I'm not a social butterfly -- put a soldering iron in my hand and I'll have a good time. I enjoy theoreticals about encryption and side channel attacks. I identify more with Woz than Jobs. Universally, across the board, every time I told someone I'm an engineer at Apple I got the look up and down and "you are?" in reply. I think people have an image of Apple that's formed from the typical customer and perhaps the retail folks; while that's true to an extent (what's served at Caffe Macs is an often great example, but you can find a kick-ass burger if you know which one to go to), I didn't find that Apple struck me as especially hipster or faux-cool or however you want to think of it. Again, maybe my area, but typical Web startup people generally break that way, so I would have expected Apple to reflect it, but no. That's neither here nor there and represents a very compartmentalized view. (I didn't work on Infinite Loop, and when I made journeys over there I got a different feeling, so that might be related.)
Just based on my own experience, I think team fit goes way over culture fit, and I don't think OP's experience sounds like a culture screen.
The other difference is that my process was practically a mirrored copy of Google's, with recruiter courting, technical screen by the recruiter, deeper screen by the #2 on the team, in person interviews. I interviewed for two different teams at Apple (one no-hired me, which was fun because then I was responsible for some of their stuff), and the process was nearly identical, except the no-hire team put a pair of people in the room and my accepting team put only one for each interview. At no point was FaceTime ever used. In fact, I wasn't aware that was a norm anywhere, but I admit that my purview was limited to my area.
I'm not prepared to get into my experiences at Apple much beyond the surface level that I touched upon, for a few reasons, but I left for the same reason everybody does. I was offered a career-advancing opportunity to prepend senior to my title and help build out a small startup that's going places and really making a name for themselves. Apple, like Google, has already "won" (for lack of a better word) and while a portion of compensation is equity, it's hard to feel like you're putting it out there to change the world. Apple spends a not-insignificant amount of time changing the world, to be sure, but it takes time and stripes to end up in a position where you can be on a team like that.
There's no shortage of folklore about Jobs hand-picking teams, as I'm sure you know, and moving around at Apple is very social by its nature. You have to make a conscious effort to end up in a position where you get an opportunity to build Swift, or iPhone (I mean building it, not keeping it going; vast numbers of people keep it going now), or Apple Watch unless you're hired into an essential role for something like that. Most people at Apple are doing the same things you and I do: upgrading Cassandra, diagnosing some OS bug that only appears on certain phones and carriers, localizing a piece of iTunes. So it becomes a question of how much you're willing to invest to earn your place at Federighi's side on stage, launching your passion that will change the world. For some, that equation breaks the right way. For me, I need more immediate feedback. Make sense? More me than them.
My time in the peninsula taught me that I value small, scrappy teams more, and that I'm not cut out for Facebook, Google, Apple, and friends. For that very same reason, I'm not the best person to ask on whether you should work for Apple or Google: some people thrive very well in large-scale corporate organizations but it isn't for me. In general, I'd wager a new grad should do a peninsula tour before getting into the risk game up 101, but I think that's a very myopic view, if I'm honest.
I have never been able to distinguish whether the subtext is "I hated my job and left as soon as I got the chance" with "I loved my job and only left because I got something even better".
They created at Atari a night shift just for him (he was the only employe of this team) to do the same work than the others. This answers the question.
I am the kind of person who likes to work with small but effective teams. I like people who are willing to go the extra mile to build something cool and advanced. Although i haven't been to Google, Apple, etc but i think these companies do not leave enough room for people to explore new cool technologies to work in, which is pretty much all you do in startups.
So i'll always go with a smaller and effective team than being part of a very big company where my role is more or less insignificant.
Yikes! Don't fall into the title driven career path. Titles are a false currency and a company accreditation that is of non-transferrable value outside that company, for the most part.
It could be that the process came down to a handful of equally desirable candidates, at which point luck plays a large role in deciding who gets the job.
Another factor I've heard considered in that situation; Does he/she have a lifestyle that can fit in this town? Windsurfers quickly change their minds about living in Anchorage, and next thing you know it's hiring time again.
Your post strikes me as confirmation bias. There is nothing in the story that directly suggests they were rejected based on culture fit. Neither were the questions especially vague or of topic
I am saddened that as a candidate, I am expected to just go away without getting any feedback but the company in a similar situation hounds me if I happen to reject them. I don't know how to improve this situation, unfortunately.
It's like the girl you don't want to date. You just tell her "it's me not you" rather than tell her what's wrong with her, which would be downright insulting. OTOH, the one you like you can end up courting her for months putting up your best side. Now imagine you're extremely eligible and get a lot of suitors--you tend to develop a knack for diplomacy, and the lesser said the better. Also imagine if you had to sit down with each rejected suitor to explain why they were rejected.
If a corp were to have dialogues with every rejected candidate it would take considerable effort with little to no ROI.
My understanding is that the legal departments at companies require interviewers not provide reasons for not making the hire, so as to not inadvertently expose the company to hiring malpractice lawsuits.
A decision will be completely legitimate and within the bounds of fair practice, and the rejected interview candidate could still bring a case against the company, costing time and lawyer fees.
Also, from a practical standpoint, should the interviewer see 50 candidates for a position, it's a full-time job just writing the "this is why we didn't pick you" letters.
- It is difficult to double down on feedback requests when they stop returning your calls and emails after the generic rejection pablum
- One is hesitant to do the same to them (ignoring their requests)
Fundamentally there is a difference in the power relationship here, in my opinion. A typical company can and is able to afford to treat candidates badly but I don't believe that a typical candidate enjoys a similar luxury.
My own experience from a few years back. I had relevant skills for some technology they were ramping up and got an call from them 1 hour after I submitted my resume. Next day did a phone screening and they wanted to interview me in person. The interview was for two days with 18 people. Most were coding and problem solving questions with engineers and then some management. I did correctly one all questions except one I got incorrectly and one I stumbled a bit. In the end I didn't get the offer because I was not enthusiastic enough. Apparently because I also mentioned I was interviewing at a startup. Honestly I felt I could contribute more to the startup than be a cog in the wheel at a big company. In hindsight the startup was more lucrative for me as an individual...
EVERYONE does a horrible job recruiting. I think a very low number of companies are doing this correctly.
The thing about the process is one bad moment spoils the entire process for the candidate. Shallow/No responses, or horrible questions, or something unprofessional being said during the interview.
It's not just $AAPL it is everyone, but if you are an interviewer or a recruiter, please fight for the candidates to get good responses and good questions, especially if you fly someone across the globe to awkwardly sit in a room for 6 hours.
I agree that most companies get it wrong, but what is right? It seems like interviewing and recruiting is a field dominated by "sounds right, common sense" styles of thinking (like most HR) where there is no post-mortem of how well a candidate did in the next 6-24 months.
Even if you look at most MBA programs, the stuff on recruiting and interviewing aren't as research and evidence based as you would expect, and instead you just get spoon fed a bunch of best practices seemingly out of thin air.
I think programmers and technology companies in particular are very trend-following. For example, Microsoft decided to do some out-of-the-box questioning about circle manhole covers and suddenly tons of other companies had to have their own version. Google did CS algorithm questions, so everyone else had to have them also (even for jobs which use high level libraries like Java, C#, PHP, etc).
They get it wrong because no one knows how to do it right. Actually...evaluating human knowledge and behavior into a bunch of 1 hour interview slots doesn't lead to much accurate information.
They have the same problem as academics do, only without the benefit of being able to consistently apply the scientific method and good experimental practices (the only hope of cracking that nut).
The author has an odd interest in sharing numbers that, while significant, show that the point is being missed.
Sure, 700 billion is an impressive market cap for a company, but that's not what it's all about for the creative people of Apple.
$6,000 of your time, meh, we all invest that much in side projects, year after year, if not more frequently than that.
5,000 miles, yeah, so you took a flight, is this supposed to be a measure of something of significance? Yes we sometimes travel for interviews. Putting mileage numbers to it almost sounds like complaining.
17 hours of WWDC videos, that's a sliver of a slice of what's available. If anything, it's an embarrassing number to admit to, for someone who claims to be an Apple UI expert.
Maybe this weird fixation on off-point numbers was a turnoff for the kind folks at Apple, I don't know.
If we're going to focus on money, which the Author did, Apple's revenue per full-time equivalent is $2.13 million. It's obvious that Apple didn't feel that he was going to be worth that.
Good callout.. especially considering the article started off like:
>3 screening calls, 5 FaceTime interviews, a trip to Cupertino for 5 two-person interviews
I think the author has indirectly replied to you via the article:
> Note: The numbers (700 Billion, etc) are there to give context and a sense of scale. This wasn’t a small boutique design company—which fwiw I’ve worked for a couple and loved it—this was the company who got valued by that amount because they’re doing something interesting. I personally don’t see money as a measure of worth, but as a freelancer and well, running my business, should not and cannot ignore it. Numbers such as ‘5000 miles’ are there just for stylistic reasons, saying ‘a flight’ would be way more banal. Chill and have a good one.
I notice several comments about culture fit and not clicking with interviewers, but it's worth keeping in mind that there isn't always a "reason" for not getting an offer. Not related to the candidate, that is. Job openings sometimes disappear for random internal reasons, or there may have been another candidate for the same position who was objectively a much better fit.
I feel you have to look at job interviews like a hand of poker or the like. There are things you can do to increase your odds, but even with perfect play not every hand is winnable.
I applied for a Developer position back in the summer (not at Apple) and after a great phone interview I never heard back.
Today, more than 7 months later I got a call out of the blue saying the position was just advertised again and they were really disappointed I didn't apply (I didn't see it) apparently my resume was great and I scored really high on the phone interview (who knew?) so they've had me submit my resume today and have already started calling my references.
I'm very curious why it all fell in a heap 7 months ago, but I suspect internal politics or the budget dried up or some-such.
Another data point. We were hiring for a developer position and found a really promising candidate. The higher ups decided that we needed a hire for another team first which put a temporary (permanent.. ) hold on our new position. I found out much later that the candidate was never even contacted to tell them it was a no. This was a major breakdown of HR - but it shows that it's not always about the candidate.
Another anecdotal... I originally got rejected from my current position. It wasn't until a month later that they called me back and we're like, "um yeah, actually come back and let's talk about compensation." Found out that some political hurdles were cleared up for the extra headcount needed to bring me on. Apparently the whole interviewing candidates process was started a bit earlier than it should have.
At one job, I was hired pretty quickly after a couple of interviews. About a month after I started, another developer left, and they went thru the queue of people they had interviewed at the same time I did, and hired one of them. In that case turned out it was a guy I knew.
So instead of posting a new req, when they had just gone through a bunch of interviews, they hired someone from the previous round, since it was fairly recent.
Similarly, at my current position, I interviewed and was hired. After I arrived I found that I had to do some weird paperwork each pay period, but I didn't know much about the internal organization so just did what I was told. A few months later, my supervisor told me, "When we hired you, the budget for your position wasn't approved. We were hoping we could scrap together enough funding to pay for you until we could convince management to approve funding as a permanent position."
Did they plan on making you an offer after just a phone screen and a reference check? If they still planned on doing an in-person I wouldn't let them go near my references until the very last step.
In some ways they have similarities with social dates, first dates. You can feel a bit nervous, might feel intimidated; did you say the right things, did you handle yourself well. Everyone says, be yourself. It's the same for job interviews, be yourself. Be prepared, show interest, don't be overconfident, etc.
And like first dates, you can do all the right things, etc. And you think things went well, but, you find out that there is no second date.
It depends on how you want to interpret "yourself". Our selves have very many facets. We have the at-home facet, the with-friends, the one at-work, the one in front of a court. They are all our self. It basically means be natural for the face you're putting on. Don't over do it. Don't construct something overly elaborate such that it misrepresents you and it becomes apparent. Don't over think it.
I don't have a "write some algorithm in 15 minutes" self because I never do it at my job, but here I am, trying to rush an implementation on a whiteboard.
Part of that is doing research and getting to know what the company looks for in candidates and what you can expect in interviews and how you meet them. Sometimes it won't be a good fit, and that's alright.
If they want you to be their monkey and that's not you, I'd say don't do it. Of course, that's very easy for me to say, but if you think it's unreasonable and don't like it, find another company. There is no "one" company --just like there is no "one" romantic partner. It's all about trade-offs.
"Be yourself" is a very weird piece of advice, and very often the wrong thing to do.
Do you want an offer? Don't be yourself: be who they need. If it requires you to be a bit different from who you are, so be it.
Once you get the offer, the power structure changes: you're the one in control. You're the one now faced with the tyranny of choice. This is when you can decide whether accepting this job would be at odds with who you are. But you know what? Even if that's the impression you got from the interview, your job at that company might still end up being different. You could end up in a team that's completely different from the ones who interviewed you. Or the job might end up being different. Or you might end up finding out you like things you didn't think you would.
Get an offer. At all costs. Then you're in charge.
My point is when you're interviewing, do your thing, show them what you have, show them your capabilities, your dedication, vision, whatever, using your way --using 'zak_mc_krackens'' style is not going to work for me, because I will not wear it well. I won't do your technique justice. Sure, over time, one learns how to refine interviewing skills/technique, but we do it in our own 'voices'.
Don't over think it. As I said, you can do everything just right, but for whatever reason, they pick someone else. They may even consciously come to regret their decision --just like in dating. Interviewing and dating are more art than science. Sure, be prepared, show your stuff, but none of that guarantees landing the job. So there is no reason to beat yourself up for not getting the job.
>but even with perfect play not every hand is winnable.
This is so true. If you remind the person interviewing of someone they don't like, your chances lessen. You have no control over that.
Also be aware that non-HR people have to interview people with not a ton of guidance or experience in interviewing. When I interviewed people I was trying to figure out was 1) can this person help us, 2) what will it be like working with them.
Also remember that it can work the other way too. You are trying to see if you'd like to work there while interviewing. At my last company we had people reject us. And when looking for a job last year I politely told a couple companies I thought would be great I was not interested after interviewing.
We live in an age of inversion. Many things are the opposite of what makes sense.
- You have to interview, and prove you're worthy, to become a slave
- You have to pay to look at ads (ever been to a movie theater, or sat in a plane with screens in front of you?)
- You have to pay to get cancer (ever buy a cigarette?)
It's interesting, because the other way makes way more sense. If you're going to be a slave, you should get to pick where. You should be paid to look at ads. You should get paid to get cancer.
Yes, using such a manner of thinking, you ultimately arrive that you are born to die, and but live to suffer. It truly is a grim irony, isn't it?
Sometimes though, we say to ourselves we were born to live and suffer to live. The manner through which you justify your existence here on this Earth -- and how that relates to your work / play balance -- is nothing special to this age and never will be something special to an age. Its roots go too deep. We'll always be paying in some form to live or die.
>> You have to interview, and prove you're worthy, to become a slave... If you're going to be a slave, you should get to pick where.
Being a slave means performing involuntary work without pay. Having a job means performing voluntary work for pay. I'm not sure how you're conflating the two. Also, you do get to pick where you work.
>> You have to pay to look at ads (ever been to a movie theater, or sat in a plane with screens in front of you?)... You should be paid to look at ads.
On the contrary, those ads offset the cost of your movie or your flight. Just because they don't completely cover your cost doesn't change the basic tradeoff that's going on.
The lack of explanation about why they didn't hire you is completely normal in California. Saying nothing at all ensures they don't say anything that can be interpreted as discrimination, minimizing their legal exposure.
They have nothing to gain by explaining and plenty to lose if they say something stupid.
It's also just awkward. I've had a few cases where people pressed me for feedback, and I responded gently but truthfully. I thought the answers were somewhat innocuous (you don't have any experience with X), but people still got defensive.
I've certainly interviewed and didn't get offered a job. It stings, even when I knew I wasn't the best fit. It's natural to feel some bitterness.
I like the following interview style (I was interviewed for a security full time position at a well-known SV company like this):
Skip introduction...
1) start with basic textbook questions like what is authenticity and authentication or XSS
2) catch what the interviewee said and build questions (e.g. I said something about private key so interviewer asked me about pro and cons of asymmetric and symmetric encryption). Oh yeah - know your shit because they are going to catch you! It's okay to say "I don't know." Being straightforward earns respect. My interviewers didn't penalize me much (well I just graduated from college...).
3) the next couple interviews again starts with introduction, then deep dive into what the team does, what the team is building at a high level, then proceed to ask me my interest. Here i would talk about my ideal projects, show them high level how I would go about implementing my idea, challenges I face (and also why I have to build one; are there any existing solution and are they not adequate).
Take caution of your words - know the things you say aloud.
Somewhere in those 4-6 interviews, add a programming sessions if you haven't done so (for me I skip that and went to onsite because of internal referral).
I didn't get an offer probably because I didn't quite know what I really want to build. My idea was too generic and probably too "child play." It was a really intense and yet fun interview. This interview process allows interviewer and interviewee to see if they are a match or not quickly and pleasantly. I always look back at this interview and believe that the rejection is just and great for me and for the team. I wasn't a match and I won't be a match any time soon. I am still exploring techniques, interests and ideas.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Bottomline - don't let any person/company judge your competence. If you've got the chops, you'll excel at what you do. So, go build it.
I've had 9 on-sites in the past 4 months at both large companies and start-ups. A few reflections:
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we like your career trajectory; we've identified you as a candidate that we want to follow up with in ~6 months".
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we really like you; we think you'd be a fit here, we'll be constructing this team in ~6 months".
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we wont relocate; we wont fly you out here; we're only considering local (e.g. Bay Area) candidates".
- Sometimes, a "No" means that it's up to you to reflect on the situation. Take as many notes as you can during the process. Analyze what you said, wrote, acted, etc. It's up to you to determine how you could be better.
- When you get to the on-site and have the opportunity to learn a lot more, things might not be all ponies and rainbows like you'd imagine. Be open to what you didn't want to see, hear, or learn about. You might learn that you actually don't want to work here.
- You're racing against the clock. Balance is key. You hear advice about asking clarification questions, discussing trade-offs, etc. but at the end of the hour one of the most important things is the code you put up on that board. The interviewer will likely whip out their phone, take a pic, and that's that.
- Coding on a whiteboard, with a stranger, in an unfamiliar environment, after traveling many miles... is... challenging. Without much practice, you're at risk to fall flat on your face--I've face-planted my fair share, and it's always fuel to get back at it again.
- Interview as much as you possibly can. You learn about companies, people, technology, industry, challenges, etc. Practice, practice, practice.
- Sometimes, recruiters reach out to you for an initial call (you're excited), and then you learn that members of the hiring team haven't even seen your resume (orly? u think i haz de skillz dear rekrooter?). You then never hear back from the recruiter, or receive an email stating that they're not moving forward. I've only had a couple of these, but it's enough for me to strongly dislike contact before any member of the hiring team has reviewed my qualifications.
I have been working at a smallish startup for the last 2 years and have spent a lot of time hiring people. You have not asked for comments about what might have led to your rejection, so feel free to disregard this free advice. Obviously I don't have enough information to give you real feedback, but perhaps the following will be helpful.
By far and away the biggest reason we tend to reject junior/intermediate people who have had a decent interview is that their view of their own level and our impression of the same level appears to be grossly at odds. We don't expect junior people to know how to do everything, but rather hire people where we can see very good growth potential. We have an exceptionally low attrition rate, so this has worked out very well for us.
There were several things in your web page that would raise immediate warning flags for me if I were to see it in an interview. As others have mentioned, the attention to numbers makes me feel that you are justifying yourself. For example, the translation of the time you spent on a personal project to money makes me feel that you are trying very hard to make it sound impressive. The details about how many hours a course took and how you spent many more hours making notes makes me think that you want this to be a very impressive thing.
Please don't take this as a personal attack. It is a very good thing to be proud of your accomplishments and to use the good feelings as a springboard to your next project. The only problem is that you will find that these accomplishments will really pale when compared against the many people who have nurtured side projects for years, written hundreds or thousands of pages of peer reviewed documentation, designed and given courses (as opposed to taking them), etc.
My point is not to discourage you -- just the opposite! I love to see CVs where people take initiative and invest their own time in things they love. No matter how small the thing might be, it always has the potential to be a seed that grows into a tree. But if I get the sense that you are over valuing your accomplishment I am left to wonder -- is that all this person is capable of? I am looking for amazing growth in the applicant. Can they do something 10 times more impressive with some guidance? 100 times more impressive? Or will they hit a glass ceiling and say, "This is as good as anyone could reasonably expect me to be".
Even if someone has potential, they don't always have the maturity yet to bring that potential to fruition. My advice is simple. Present your accomplishments with no embellishment or sales pitch. If they are impressive, then the interviewer will be impressed. If they are not impressed, then you have a very real opportunity. Ask the question, "What would make you impressed and can you help me get to the point to be able to do that?" If they can, then the job will be yours. If they can't then it is not a job you want anyway.
"Present your accomplishments with no embellishment or sales pitch. If they are impressive, then the interviewer will be impressed." --> I can sign that.
294 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 356 ms ] threadAnd indeed, if you had to go through all this it means they very seriously considered you for the position. Now, the expenses they made mean little (even for a far poorer company) compared to the mistake of recruiting someone that did not fit.
There's many reasons why someone would not be selected and sometimes it's just that people didn't "click" really.
I know that most of the time, recruiters word is "if you're not sure, better not hire than to make a mistake" and sometimes people who could have been accepted and made a positive contribution to the team get refused. There's even a bit of luck in that.
Thanks for sharing, though. I've never applied for Apple - albeit I guess engineering jobs get more tech stuff in the facetime interviews ;)
Then, there are relationships with colleagues and between employees regardless of performance, if you fire very rarely then your employees are happier, everyone's happier and performance is better.
Basically, you always take the smartest risk you can, and quite often, that means no hire when you're not too sure.
Please explain. I hear this a lot but it's never substantiated other than by vague references to employees being able to sue for being fired. Yes, some employees do sue, but there generally is no ground to do so, even when the employer has misbehaved. In my experience, it's actually incredibly easy and cheap to fire someone. You might lose a couple months' salary, but generally even that won't be a total loss as you're likely to get at least some decent work even out of a bad hire.
It's great to see insight into interviews, in general, but that just left a weird bitter note to the article.
Luis might have very well been looking for work during this time, but by phrasing it as an outright monetary loss, he exaggerates his sacrifice and gives an appeal to the reader to condemn what Apple "did to him."I believe this is the reason also for the "700 Billion". Oh well. Sucks to be rejected. Natural reaction
I understand wanting to really vet someone first; but it really does seem kind of excessive how long these interview processes are becoming. It's not as if the author were applying for a Japanese salaryman (read: lifetime) employment position. Why not do a normal interview, bring them on as a contractor, see how it goes, and then make your final decision? It'd be a bit of a risk for the candidate if relocation were involved and remote work wasn't possible, but that would be on them.
I don't think it is. First of all, the hours aren't "lost", they are "cost of getting a job" - you don't interview without at least considering the possibility of not getting an offer. Anyone who expects to get a job after every interview they do is delusional. It's like the time you spend pitching your services to a client who then decides not to hire you - not "lost" time, but "cost of business".
If you're freelancing, then it's not that imaginary. You're giving up billable time.
It's just not realistic. Like the guy above you said, it comes down to time and I can sympathize with that. But to imagine you always have someone on hand right there willing to pay for your hours of work is where I am like "ok, wait, hold on."
In other words, just another unsuccessful interview, nothing unusual here, nor anything that Apple did badly or wrong.
(the question of whether companies actually need employees of that caliber for building mobile apps is a entirely different one)
Sure, pushing pixels around is easy, but when you're up against a deadline and the app is crashing in a subtle way, you need engineers who have solid debugging chops. Not everybody does.
Another way to put it is that the manager's job is also to hire the best team possible, and there is a wide variance in skill levels of engineers. All other things being equal, hiring engineers who are more adept is a big advantage to the company.
My point was that he's not hurting for work in general, so this story doesn't really have bearing on the talent shortage.
About 9 interviews later over 4 spread-out days, I was told I had done quite well during the interview process.
Eventually I was not given the position because I was holding a beer in my LinkedIn picture.
They ended up paying my current employer (their vendor at the time) astronomical amounts of money to do the very same service, done by me, on-site.
Go figure.
As with all interviews, you gotta do a little dance to get in, but they're not reflective of daily experience.
If they don't want my whole personality, they can't have my intelligence.
I refuse to turn myself into a "corporate robot" for the sake of a paycheck.
They only grep the CVs for words, if you put you're a lion tamer, archeologist, but has the word PHP in your CV (or something similar) you'll get a flood of IT jobs
My personality is my personality, and when you hire me you're going to get the whole thing. If you can't handle it, I rather you don't even talk to me in the first place.
I look forward to a future where nobody cares about this stuff.
My contact at the client gathered up all the photos and bios and emailed them to me. Maybe 25% of the photos were professional headshots. The majority were just crappy cell phone pictures.
The rest were people at parties holding a beer. I emailed my contact to make sure he wanted me to use these and he told me to go ahead. Sure enough, a day after we went live I get a pissed-off call from him demanding to know why I used those photos.
On the bright side, this is one of the things that stops the entire economy being swallowed up by a handful of megacorporations.
Regarding the article, yea, seems pretty standard. Sorry you didn't get the job
1. OP wanted to emphasize what it is like to interview at a company which has a lot of resources to invest into interviews - one of the things mentioned was committing multiple people for a full day to just interview him, as well as willing to bear a high initial cost (travel, hotel) to interview him.
2. OP wanted to detail the interview process of such a financially successful company: who they hire, why they hire that person, how they find and select candidates that have contributed to that high financial success.
3. OP wanted a crafty title beyond "My interview at Apple"
4. More likely to be clicked on, shared, commented or voted on (i.e clickbait).
Silicon Valley as an engineer is a demanding environment to be in, and like many such environments getting in is quite a challenge. As an outsider, you are at many disadvantages: you don't know the culture, you don't know how things get done, you don't know who to talk to and who will waste your time, and so on. So to get in, not only are you fighting against all of these obstacles, but you also have to perform at the level which is expected of everyone, which might be higher than what you're used to.
This means that the odds of getting in on your first try are quite, quite low. If your goal is really to make it there, you have to treat it as a numbers game - after 5, 10, 20 tries, you'll probably get in. Or maybe if your dream is to work at Google/Facebook/etc., then the best way to do it is to first start working for a smaller, lesser known company that's having a harder time hiring. Make yourself a name there, volunteer to give some talks, post some open source projects that'll bring your name at the top of Hacker News for a day, and after a couple of years, knock again at the door of your dream company. Or maybe they'll end up knocking at your door again very soon. Recruiters know very well that the number of false negatives is quite high, and that people can change very fast.
If you want to take part, you have to put in a lot of effort and personal work, and expect things to take time- you have to stay humble, and you have to keep pushing. I think it's worth it. Some people don't believe that it is, and that's completely fine- but you have to know whether you want it or not. If you really do, then don't give up on the first obstacle.
Some I liked:
What does a typical day look like for you?
What projects do you work on?
How long have you been at $company? How has your role changed since then?
If I were hired for this role, what would my first day/week/month look like?
Is there anything about $company that some people really like, but others might dislike? (For example, having an open-plan office.)
What tools do you use on a regular basis?
(That said, most of the people I've been interviewed by were devs, so this was not really ever an issue.)
In general though, I'd avoid HR-related questions. They are almost always likely to generate a generic response, almost every candidate will ask similar questions, and they can easily be answered by your HR department contact.
I've seriously been asked by a candidate in an interview what our product was, and not just once. You took a day off work to come here and you couldn't even look at our website? On the other hand, I've had candidates who proactively identified some of the internal challenges we were currently dealing with "but how do you deal with X?" which is impressive.
More importantly, this decision to work at a company is going to have a bigger impact on the candidate than the hiring manager. People forget that the interview is a two way process. It's important to find out whether this company is going to be a place you will enjoy. Use questions as a way to figure out what the environment is like. Look for subtext in the answers.
This conversation is reminding me of why I washed out of the Bay Area high-tech scene. I was able to do it, but at too high a price. I'd rather work with slightly less smart people on much less shiny products, but living in a place where I can afford to buy a house, and with enough brainpower left over so that I don't have to live for my job.
It didn't help any that Be's heart was already broken by the time I got there. I don't think anybody really believed that the eVilla was going to be a success. But I could have overcome that problem, if I'd been smart.
Ultimately, I'm just not cut out to work in the rarified air that you work in. I can certainly see the appeal, though.
Many of the people who worked on that project ended up back together as part of the team that built Android: Dianne Hackborn, Jean Baptiste Queru, and many more (BeIA actually had a early version of Binder in it). Not immediately though: people who weathered the layoffs ended up being acquired by Palm. Mired in politics, I don't think the OS they built there ever shipped on any hardware, but, as I understand, many of the ideas from that project ended up in Android. The other big contingent of Be-ites, which I followed, went to Danger, which Andy Rubin had co-founded. After that flamed out, many people from there ended up at Android as well. I'm pleased to see Android's success, especially given the string of failures that many of the team members experienced over the prior 8+ years. Many people may not realize that.
To your other point: I periodically go running at lunch with a group that I work with. They are much more serious than I am and have been doing it longer. I'm not at all a great runner and fall behind pretty quickly. I don't aspire to be, and have no expectations I ever will. But I like to run with them because it motivates me to work harder and it's more fun with go with other people than by myself, even if it points out my shortcomings. Most people who seem smart just have spent a lot of time doing something. Personally, I think it's important not to be intimidated by people who you think are better at you than something. You're also probably better than you think. In those days I think was the type of interviewer everybody here is complaining about, so you probably did alright. :)
Yes, I am very aware of the post-Be trajectories of all you guys. I've been following you all since then. Almost nobody remembers Be anymore, but I still get mileage in job interviews out of having former coworkers on the Android team. (heh.)
I would say that my time at Be was a failure, but that it was also entirely my fault. I was often so intimidated by you guys that I was afraid to speak up. I would have gotten over it eventually, but not in that environment, what with our impending doom and periodic layoffs hanging over our heads. I didn't enjoy working on the eVilla, and I don't think I was alone in that respect. But I could have put my head down and performed a workmanlike job anyway, while cultivating contacts amongst all you guys who were dribbling out to bigger and better things. But I let my intimidation get in the way and made myself a liability.
I am well aware I could get back into the big leagues if I wanted to. I am a much better programmer now than I was then. I clawed my way in the first time, I could do it again. But I really don't think the Bay Area is for me. I recently bought a house for 180k that would have likely cost a million bucks out there. I am happy with my piddly little jobs in the B leagues where I don't have to try all that hard.
I guess I'm not as ambitious as I thought I was.
The author got it right when he mentioned at the end that he was "talking to the people who implemented the original OSX UI". That's the sort of thing that would make me interested in working for you. Personally, I don't care about a company's 'interview process'. That's just filler crap they use to get people talking. I don't need help to get me talking about what I do. I'll answer questions, but as soon as I can, I'll be grilling you about all kinds of stuff. I'm in question-asking mode by default.
Back to OP: I personally don't see myself working for a place that needs to talk to me for more than 1 hr before making a decision. If they take this long to decide on a hire, imagine how long and grueling are their technology decisions.
At the end of the day, it comes down to being able to truly connect with your interviewers and breaking out of the typical question-answer format. It sounds like you almost reached that point - I'm not sure if the lunch was a standard thing they did with all applicants, but it did seem like they were really interested in you. It could be that the process came down to a handful of equally desirable candidates, at which point luck plays a large role in deciding who gets the job. I would definitely keep in touch with everyone you met, and apply again at the next opportunity.
My culture screen was in-person, while I was being interviewed technically. Part of their process was getting to know me. I'm relaxed in interviews, joke around, and have a good time because at the end of the day, we need to like what we do. I find that this confidence has opened a lot of doors for me, but I do have to work very hard to project it given my internal strife. I often find that interviewers are more nervous than me, frankly, because as an industry we tend to toss people in a room who are themselves suffering from imposter syndrome and ask them to gauge someone they've never met with very little interview training. I was interviewing for one company on my third day.
I am the polar opposite of what I would consider to be someone who "fits Apple culture," in general, but it's worth remembering that there are vastly different cultures in different areas. I'm fat, I don't dress well, I'm largely unkempt if left to my own devices, I'm not a social butterfly -- put a soldering iron in my hand and I'll have a good time. I enjoy theoreticals about encryption and side channel attacks. I identify more with Woz than Jobs. Universally, across the board, every time I told someone I'm an engineer at Apple I got the look up and down and "you are?" in reply. I think people have an image of Apple that's formed from the typical customer and perhaps the retail folks; while that's true to an extent (what's served at Caffe Macs is an often great example, but you can find a kick-ass burger if you know which one to go to), I didn't find that Apple struck me as especially hipster or faux-cool or however you want to think of it. Again, maybe my area, but typical Web startup people generally break that way, so I would have expected Apple to reflect it, but no. That's neither here nor there and represents a very compartmentalized view. (I didn't work on Infinite Loop, and when I made journeys over there I got a different feeling, so that might be related.)
Just based on my own experience, I think team fit goes way over culture fit, and I don't think OP's experience sounds like a culture screen.
The other difference is that my process was practically a mirrored copy of Google's, with recruiter courting, technical screen by the recruiter, deeper screen by the #2 on the team, in person interviews. I interviewed for two different teams at Apple (one no-hired me, which was fun because then I was responsible for some of their stuff), and the process was nearly identical, except the no-hire team put a pair of people in the room and my accepting team put only one for each interview. At no point was FaceTime ever used. In fact, I wasn't aware that was a norm anywhere, but I admit that my purview was limited to my area.
There's no shortage of folklore about Jobs hand-picking teams, as I'm sure you know, and moving around at Apple is very social by its nature. You have to make a conscious effort to end up in a position where you get an opportunity to build Swift, or iPhone (I mean building it, not keeping it going; vast numbers of people keep it going now), or Apple Watch unless you're hired into an essential role for something like that. Most people at Apple are doing the same things you and I do: upgrading Cassandra, diagnosing some OS bug that only appears on certain phones and carriers, localizing a piece of iTunes. So it becomes a question of how much you're willing to invest to earn your place at Federighi's side on stage, launching your passion that will change the world. For some, that equation breaks the right way. For me, I need more immediate feedback. Make sense? More me than them.
My time in the peninsula taught me that I value small, scrappy teams more, and that I'm not cut out for Facebook, Google, Apple, and friends. For that very same reason, I'm not the best person to ask on whether you should work for Apple or Google: some people thrive very well in large-scale corporate organizations but it isn't for me. In general, I'd wager a new grad should do a peninsula tour before getting into the risk game up 101, but I think that's a very myopic view, if I'm honest.
So i'll always go with a smaller and effective team than being part of a very big company where my role is more or less insignificant.
Another factor I've heard considered in that situation; Does he/she have a lifestyle that can fit in this town? Windsurfers quickly change their minds about living in Anchorage, and next thing you know it's hiring time again.
If a corp were to have dialogues with every rejected candidate it would take considerable effort with little to no ROI.
A decision will be completely legitimate and within the bounds of fair practice, and the rejected interview candidate could still bring a case against the company, costing time and lawyer fees.
Also, from a practical standpoint, should the interviewer see 50 candidates for a position, it's a full-time job just writing the "this is why we didn't pick you" letters.
You make it sound like the only option is passive acceptance.
- It is difficult to double down on feedback requests when they stop returning your calls and emails after the generic rejection pablum
- One is hesitant to do the same to them (ignoring their requests)
Fundamentally there is a difference in the power relationship here, in my opinion. A typical company can and is able to afford to treat candidates badly but I don't believe that a typical candidate enjoys a similar luxury.
This is a really cool way to sum up the article.
The thing about the process is one bad moment spoils the entire process for the candidate. Shallow/No responses, or horrible questions, or something unprofessional being said during the interview.
It's not just $AAPL it is everyone, but if you are an interviewer or a recruiter, please fight for the candidates to get good responses and good questions, especially if you fly someone across the globe to awkwardly sit in a room for 6 hours.
Even if you look at most MBA programs, the stuff on recruiting and interviewing aren't as research and evidence based as you would expect, and instead you just get spoon fed a bunch of best practices seemingly out of thin air.
I think programmers and technology companies in particular are very trend-following. For example, Microsoft decided to do some out-of-the-box questioning about circle manhole covers and suddenly tons of other companies had to have their own version. Google did CS algorithm questions, so everyone else had to have them also (even for jobs which use high level libraries like Java, C#, PHP, etc).
(I'm stretching, I know.)
Sure, 700 billion is an impressive market cap for a company, but that's not what it's all about for the creative people of Apple.
$6,000 of your time, meh, we all invest that much in side projects, year after year, if not more frequently than that.
5,000 miles, yeah, so you took a flight, is this supposed to be a measure of something of significance? Yes we sometimes travel for interviews. Putting mileage numbers to it almost sounds like complaining.
17 hours of WWDC videos, that's a sliver of a slice of what's available. If anything, it's an embarrassing number to admit to, for someone who claims to be an Apple UI expert.
Maybe this weird fixation on off-point numbers was a turnoff for the kind folks at Apple, I don't know.
> Note: The numbers (700 Billion, etc) are there to give context and a sense of scale. This wasn’t a small boutique design company—which fwiw I’ve worked for a couple and loved it—this was the company who got valued by that amount because they’re doing something interesting. I personally don’t see money as a measure of worth, but as a freelancer and well, running my business, should not and cannot ignore it. Numbers such as ‘5000 miles’ are there just for stylistic reasons, saying ‘a flight’ would be way more banal. Chill and have a good one.
I feel you have to look at job interviews like a hand of poker or the like. There are things you can do to increase your odds, but even with perfect play not every hand is winnable.
I applied for a Developer position back in the summer (not at Apple) and after a great phone interview I never heard back.
Today, more than 7 months later I got a call out of the blue saying the position was just advertised again and they were really disappointed I didn't apply (I didn't see it) apparently my resume was great and I scored really high on the phone interview (who knew?) so they've had me submit my resume today and have already started calling my references.
I'm very curious why it all fell in a heap 7 months ago, but I suspect internal politics or the budget dried up or some-such.
So instead of posting a new req, when they had just gone through a bunch of interviews, they hired someone from the previous round, since it was fairly recent.
And like first dates, you can do all the right things, etc. And you think things went well, but, you find out that there is no second date.
If they want you to be their monkey and that's not you, I'd say don't do it. Of course, that's very easy for me to say, but if you think it's unreasonable and don't like it, find another company. There is no "one" company --just like there is no "one" romantic partner. It's all about trade-offs.
You have all day to write code on your computer at a job. There is no rush. But the interview is much different than what you'd be doing at the job.
Do you want an offer? Don't be yourself: be who they need. If it requires you to be a bit different from who you are, so be it.
Once you get the offer, the power structure changes: you're the one in control. You're the one now faced with the tyranny of choice. This is when you can decide whether accepting this job would be at odds with who you are. But you know what? Even if that's the impression you got from the interview, your job at that company might still end up being different. You could end up in a team that's completely different from the ones who interviewed you. Or the job might end up being different. Or you might end up finding out you like things you didn't think you would.
Get an offer. At all costs. Then you're in charge.
My point is when you're interviewing, do your thing, show them what you have, show them your capabilities, your dedication, vision, whatever, using your way --using 'zak_mc_krackens'' style is not going to work for me, because I will not wear it well. I won't do your technique justice. Sure, over time, one learns how to refine interviewing skills/technique, but we do it in our own 'voices'.
Don't over think it. As I said, you can do everything just right, but for whatever reason, they pick someone else. They may even consciously come to regret their decision --just like in dating. Interviewing and dating are more art than science. Sure, be prepared, show your stuff, but none of that guarantees landing the job. So there is no reason to beat yourself up for not getting the job.
This is so true. If you remind the person interviewing of someone they don't like, your chances lessen. You have no control over that. Also be aware that non-HR people have to interview people with not a ton of guidance or experience in interviewing. When I interviewed people I was trying to figure out was 1) can this person help us, 2) what will it be like working with them.
Also remember that it can work the other way too. You are trying to see if you'd like to work there while interviewing. At my last company we had people reject us. And when looking for a job last year I politely told a couple companies I thought would be great I was not interested after interviewing.
- You have to interview, and prove you're worthy, to become a slave
- You have to pay to look at ads (ever been to a movie theater, or sat in a plane with screens in front of you?)
- You have to pay to get cancer (ever buy a cigarette?)
It's interesting, because the other way makes way more sense. If you're going to be a slave, you should get to pick where. You should be paid to look at ads. You should get paid to get cancer.
Sometimes though, we say to ourselves we were born to live and suffer to live. The manner through which you justify your existence here on this Earth -- and how that relates to your work / play balance -- is nothing special to this age and never will be something special to an age. Its roots go too deep. We'll always be paying in some form to live or die.
Being a slave means performing involuntary work without pay. Having a job means performing voluntary work for pay. I'm not sure how you're conflating the two. Also, you do get to pick where you work.
>> You have to pay to look at ads (ever been to a movie theater, or sat in a plane with screens in front of you?)... You should be paid to look at ads.
On the contrary, those ads offset the cost of your movie or your flight. Just because they don't completely cover your cost doesn't change the basic tradeoff that's going on.
I get the feeling they would call the company "assholes", of course there wasn't quite the celebrity culture of tech and money back then.
They have nothing to gain by explaining and plenty to lose if they say something stupid.
I've certainly interviewed and didn't get offered a job. It stings, even when I knew I wasn't the best fit. It's natural to feel some bitterness.
Skip introduction...
1) start with basic textbook questions like what is authenticity and authentication or XSS
2) catch what the interviewee said and build questions (e.g. I said something about private key so interviewer asked me about pro and cons of asymmetric and symmetric encryption). Oh yeah - know your shit because they are going to catch you! It's okay to say "I don't know." Being straightforward earns respect. My interviewers didn't penalize me much (well I just graduated from college...).
3) the next couple interviews again starts with introduction, then deep dive into what the team does, what the team is building at a high level, then proceed to ask me my interest. Here i would talk about my ideal projects, show them high level how I would go about implementing my idea, challenges I face (and also why I have to build one; are there any existing solution and are they not adequate). Take caution of your words - know the things you say aloud.
Somewhere in those 4-6 interviews, add a programming sessions if you haven't done so (for me I skip that and went to onsite because of internal referral).
I didn't get an offer probably because I didn't quite know what I really want to build. My idea was too generic and probably too "child play." It was a really intense and yet fun interview. This interview process allows interviewer and interviewee to see if they are a match or not quickly and pleasantly. I always look back at this interview and believe that the rejection is just and great for me and for the team. I wasn't a match and I won't be a match any time soon. I am still exploring techniques, interests and ideas.
Developing a workforce is about cultivating good leadership, a balanced diversity of thought, improving raw talent and most importantly tenacity.
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we like your career trajectory; we've identified you as a candidate that we want to follow up with in ~6 months".
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we really like you; we think you'd be a fit here, we'll be constructing this team in ~6 months".
- Sometimes, a "No" means "we wont relocate; we wont fly you out here; we're only considering local (e.g. Bay Area) candidates".
- Sometimes, a "No" means that it's up to you to reflect on the situation. Take as many notes as you can during the process. Analyze what you said, wrote, acted, etc. It's up to you to determine how you could be better.
- When you get to the on-site and have the opportunity to learn a lot more, things might not be all ponies and rainbows like you'd imagine. Be open to what you didn't want to see, hear, or learn about. You might learn that you actually don't want to work here.
- You're racing against the clock. Balance is key. You hear advice about asking clarification questions, discussing trade-offs, etc. but at the end of the hour one of the most important things is the code you put up on that board. The interviewer will likely whip out their phone, take a pic, and that's that.
- Coding on a whiteboard, with a stranger, in an unfamiliar environment, after traveling many miles... is... challenging. Without much practice, you're at risk to fall flat on your face--I've face-planted my fair share, and it's always fuel to get back at it again.
- Interview as much as you possibly can. You learn about companies, people, technology, industry, challenges, etc. Practice, practice, practice.
- Sometimes, recruiters reach out to you for an initial call (you're excited), and then you learn that members of the hiring team haven't even seen your resume (orly? u think i haz de skillz dear rekrooter?). You then never hear back from the recruiter, or receive an email stating that they're not moving forward. I've only had a couple of these, but it's enough for me to strongly dislike contact before any member of the hiring team has reviewed my qualifications.
By far and away the biggest reason we tend to reject junior/intermediate people who have had a decent interview is that their view of their own level and our impression of the same level appears to be grossly at odds. We don't expect junior people to know how to do everything, but rather hire people where we can see very good growth potential. We have an exceptionally low attrition rate, so this has worked out very well for us.
There were several things in your web page that would raise immediate warning flags for me if I were to see it in an interview. As others have mentioned, the attention to numbers makes me feel that you are justifying yourself. For example, the translation of the time you spent on a personal project to money makes me feel that you are trying very hard to make it sound impressive. The details about how many hours a course took and how you spent many more hours making notes makes me think that you want this to be a very impressive thing.
Please don't take this as a personal attack. It is a very good thing to be proud of your accomplishments and to use the good feelings as a springboard to your next project. The only problem is that you will find that these accomplishments will really pale when compared against the many people who have nurtured side projects for years, written hundreds or thousands of pages of peer reviewed documentation, designed and given courses (as opposed to taking them), etc.
My point is not to discourage you -- just the opposite! I love to see CVs where people take initiative and invest their own time in things they love. No matter how small the thing might be, it always has the potential to be a seed that grows into a tree. But if I get the sense that you are over valuing your accomplishment I am left to wonder -- is that all this person is capable of? I am looking for amazing growth in the applicant. Can they do something 10 times more impressive with some guidance? 100 times more impressive? Or will they hit a glass ceiling and say, "This is as good as anyone could reasonably expect me to be".
Even if someone has potential, they don't always have the maturity yet to bring that potential to fruition. My advice is simple. Present your accomplishments with no embellishment or sales pitch. If they are impressive, then the interviewer will be impressed. If they are not impressed, then you have a very real opportunity. Ask the question, "What would make you impressed and can you help me get to the point to be able to do that?" If they can, then the job will be yours. If they can't then it is not a job you want anyway.