
My experience of interviewing for a job at Apple - bouncingsoul
https://lmjabreu.com/post/700-billion/
======
downandout
Though this isn't as bad as many I've read, stories like this are the reason I
have never applied to work at any of these large firms (Google, Apple, etc.).
I have been a full-time developer for more than 20 years. I have 4 software
patents to my name, one of which formed the basis of a startup that was
acquired for $64 million. I know a few people at Facebook and Google (not at
Apple), and I am definitely in the same league in terms of coding skills.

However, based on available information, I am 100% certain that I couldn't
successfully complete the on-command hypothetical coding exercises with
someone standing over my shoulder, along with the other mental and social
gymnastics associated with applying at any of these companies. I wonder how
many other well-qualified people are out there that will simply never apply
because of the drawn-out, intimidating hiring process.

~~~
EnderMB
In a similar vein, I'd also like to know how many people manage to land jobs
at the Google's and Facebook's of the world, and ultimately prove to be less-
than-spectacular developers.

I dropped out of a masters degree to join a startup as a .NET developer, but
kept in touch with a few guys finishing there. One of them now works for
Google. He was always great in the algorithm classes, and he knew his theory
reasonably well, but he'd constantly struggle with writing the code and REALLY
grasping OO. I'd help him structure his Java code, and he'd help me grasp data
structures.

He's been there a good four years now, so he's clearly doing something right,
but I was initially shocked that he was able to get in when things like static
classes confused him.

~~~
rogy
I went to University with someone who aced every written CS exam in 'software
patterns', 'user experience', 'computer architecture' and the like who landed
a job at Google as a software engineer straight out of uni.

They couldn't complete a single practical lab exercise without help from peers
or lecturers throughout the entire time I knew them.

They didn't make it past their trial period.

~~~
MollyR
I used to be like the person you're describing. I had such a hard time with
actual software development, until a few years in, when all the theoretical
knowledge "clicked". Then I was able to always make consistent gains in dev
skills from the os level to higher level software architecture. I think it was
because I could understand the core abstractions from the higher level ones.
Though I also might be an outlier, because even out of school I study a few
hours a night.

------
RandomBK
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.

~~~
abawany
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.

~~~
oldmanjay
How about ignoring their requests for feedback and doubling down on your own?

You make it sound like the only option is passive acceptance.

~~~
abawany
Two reasons that make this difficult:

\- 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.

------
fenomas
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.

~~~
grecy
This exact thing happened to me today.

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.

~~~
smtddr
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.

~~~
steven777400
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."

~~~
vxNsr
That's a pretty terrifying thing to not be told, especially because it sounds
like it could've gone either way.

------
GuiA
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.

------
natch
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.

~~~
pippy
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.

~~~
001sky
This comment highlights why the pot should never call the kettle black.

------
Miserlou57
About two years ago I was fast-tracked to interviews at Apple via
recommendation.

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.

~~~
grecy
While I would love to work at Apple, I honestly don't think I want to work
somewhere that isn't happy to see a picture of me holding a beer.

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.

~~~
Gustomaximus
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.

~~~
oalders
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.

~~~
adamnemecek
just wait until the circus recruiters get a whiff of your profile

~~~
raverbashing
Don't worry, they will come back

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

~~~
mgcross
Yep. A good while ago, I added T-shirts, short hair, fig newtons, beer,
speeding and disorderly conduct to my list of skills. Doesn't matter.

------
qxmat
The last big interview I had was with a four letter company in Canary Wharf.
The interview 'day' was me alone in a catered meeting room with a File->New
assignment.

Despite end of the day praise and the acknowledgement that I'd be recommended
for the next phase, not to mention a genuine rapport with the devs that
sporadically popped in, the four letter firm acquired a software house and
froze recruitment a week later.

I spent a day revealing tricks and patterns - something I charge a substantial
daily rate - for nothing. But this is ridiculously common: the more effort
required to interview the less likely I am to get the job.

Nowadays I'm happy to walk out of bullshit interviews where they ask open
ended questions where only their answer is correct.

You get to a certain age/experience where it becomes apparent that a good
interview is an informal session where you have a meeting of the minds not an
adversarial grilling.

~~~
robmcm
I have been on the other side when consulting at a 4 letter company in that
location.

Most of the time you know nothing about the interview until someone asks you
to give them a technical screening an hour before. There is also no formal
process or seeming involvement from HR, it's just a, "is this person any
good". From my experience it often comes down to, in order of importance: \-
Are they willing to be perm \- Do they know what they are talking about \-
Will they fit in the team

The first one seems to be a trump card, even though most perms end up leaving
before the contractors.

This brings me onto another point in which the best interview process is
hiring someone as a consultant, and then converting them after a year or so if
you are both happy to.

~~~
skore
> the best interview process is hiring someone as a consultant, and then
> converting them after a year or so

Unfortunately, this is also a "great" way to keep temp employees in constant
limbo with the perm job as the carrot and stick. Usually, the temp job also
leaves you with a lot less money (particularly because all the perks -
insurance etc. - are reserved for proper employees) and, depending on the
company, that's just all too attractive: A temp worker turning in work like a
perm worker, always trying to "get there".

~~~
robmcm
Ironically it's the opposite in the UK, temp employees in the tech industry
typically earn a lot more.

In context to the interview I was talking about the perm rate was half of the
contract rates they were paying people on the same team.

~~~
hackerboos
I concur.

As a contractor in the UK, you are likely not paying National Insurance
contributions, are able to write off mileage and other expenses, can reduce
your tax liability with dividends. Plus you'd still get access to the NHS.

I'm perm at the moment, but if I was a contractor I'd be saving a significant
amount of money.

~~~
collyw
You ought to be paying National Insurance.

~~~
gaius
There are a lot of people like this in the UK, not just in IT, the BBC, the
media, even the government are full of them. They look like employees, quack
like employees, but dodge PAYE. They are the problem, not a couple of
billionaires with Swiss bank accounts.

------
samdk

        Note: after 25 minutes answering questions for a job you really
        want it’s kinda hard to shift to a question-asking mode.
    

When I was looking for a job I found that it helped enormously to write down a
set of questions ahead of time.

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?

~~~
jeffbush
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.

~~~
allenbrunson
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.

~~~
jeffbush
Hey, yeah! it's been a long time...

~~~
allenbrunson
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.

~~~
jeffbush
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. :)

~~~
allenbrunson
Man, this is bringing back memories.

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.

~~~
jeffbush
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.

------
steakejjs
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.

~~~
valleyer
$AAPL ? Why not “Apple”?

~~~
faitswulff
It's shorthand on Twitter to refer to a company:
[https://twitter.com/search?q=%24AAPL&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=%24AAPL&src=typd)

~~~
comex
In this case, it's the same number of characters as the longhand.

~~~
yen223
But $AAPL is clearer, because "Apple" may refer to the record company, or the
fruit!

(I'm stretching, I know.)

------
sb8244
Idk. Flaunting how much the process cost and how much income it lost was sort
of put off for me.

It's great to see insight into interviews, in general, but that just left a
weird bitter note to the article.

~~~
joslin01
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

~~~
jacques_chester
> _Same here. I always cringe a little bit when I see people breakdown their
> time to an imaginary monetary loss._

If you're freelancing, then it's not that imaginary. You're giving up billable
time.

~~~
joslin01
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."

~~~
jacques_chester
I wouldn't expect to be paid to interview. But it's still an opportunity cost.

------
jedc
I used to work for Google and did a ton of interviews for roles where I was
the hiring manager, as well as others.

One of the more painful things that I came across regularly was that we often
had multiple great people go through the full interview process for a role,
but could only hire one. Often 2-3 candidates could have done the job
brilliantly, but we could only choose one. In that case, it tends to be really
subtle things that shift the decision. (And this is where Google's Unconscious
Bias training is _vitally_ important - [https://www.gv.com/lib/unconscious-
bias-at-work](https://www.gv.com/lib/unconscious-bias-at-work))

It sounds like that situation may very well be the case here: lots of expense
(both time/effort and $) and a long series of interviews, with a "no" at the
end. (And in my experience those "no's" are often blunt, no matter how awesome
a candidate is, for cover-your-ass/legal reasons.)

~~~
skuhn
This is the startup secret weapon: they can hire people that Google (and other
large companies) cannot. When there's no shortage of work to do, and hiring is
a constant struggle, you can hire as many good people as show up at the door.

A lot of startups do still hire with a large company mindset, but I think
they're making a big mistake.

Simply the process of getting approval for a job req and playing the required
politics screws everything up. I've actually been pressured to hire someone
just to hold onto the req at a large company, with the up-front, stated
intention to fire the person in a month or two and keep looking.

~~~
jedc
> I've actually been pressured to hire someone just to hold onto the req at a
> large company, with the up-front, stated intention to fire the person in a
> month or two and keep looking.

Wow, that is seriously f __ked up. While I got pressure to hire (one role I
hired for was very specific so it took a long time to find a candidate), as
long as I was actively sourcing /interviewing people, I never got too much
flak. You've got to keep a hiring bar high... and not screw people over!

------
zobzu
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 ;)

~~~
blister
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.

~~~
yen223
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.

------
whybroke
It wouldn't happen if it weren't economically wise. Contrary to claims to the
contrary there is no shortage of adequately qualified candidates and an
endless and growing sea of unqualified. So randomly rejecting the majority of
qualified candidates is a relatively small price since the hiring goal is to
get rid of the vast sea of unqualified.

If there were indeed a shortage the practice would be reversed and companies
would be willing to risk hiring unqualified workers in order never to miss the
one candidate who can do the job.

But so long as there is a flood of less qualified workers along side a good
number of skilled ones, the practice will continue or worsen.

------
sandworm
I cannot stand the whole "culture fit" gambit. It's a job, not a country club.
The idea that some people will "fit in" and others won't and that this can be
determined during an interview is naive at best.

What you get are a bunch of new hires who's only qualification over the not-
hired is that they put on a good show for the interviewers. I'd say they are
the best actors, but that doesn't cover those very good actors who make the
mistake of playing the wrong part. Say you are willing to work through
weekends to meet deadlines ... oops sorry, you guessed wrong. In this office
that attitude is too competitive. We are going with those who guessed "no,
weekends are for relaxing" and don't think you would get along with them.

The message this sends to current employees is also evil: if you don't fit in
perfectly we don't want you. So everyone shows up to work in costume, wearing
a mask, because they fear standing apart. Bring the wrong suit or express the
wrong opinion and you might not "fit" anymore. We often hear about a lack of
visible diversity in IT. How can we expect to achieve visible diversity if we
cannot yet tolerate emotional and cultural diversity? Employees and
prospective employees should be judged on on their work product, not on their
ability to emotionally camouflage themselves.

Did Office Space teach us nothing?

~~~
personjerry
> I cannot stand the whole "culture fit" gambit. It's a job, not a country
> club. The idea that some people will "fit in" and others won't and that this
> can be determined during an interview is naive at best.

First, regarding the cultural fit: I think it's important that you share a
similar mindset with the people who already work there. You'll get along
better, and it is more productive. For example, if one person is much more
assertive than another, and tends to get their way, we may miss out on the
contributions of another. (A lot of very different examples here)

The second part: You're right, they can't give you a full personality quiz,
but they're doing their best (oral communication and body language tell a lot
more than having you fill in a quiz). They want to look for someone who fits
in, so they bring you in and see if you do. What other way is there?

> ... best actors ...

I think if you intend to be an actor for the sake of a job, you're going to
have a miserable time. Sure, I suppose this is the case if you value money
more than satisfaction at you workplace. Which is where you'll make friends
and spend a lot of your life, so I think you shouldn't, but that's subjective,
so I concede this point.

> ... not fitting ...

This relates to the previous part in terms of priorities between just "getting
the job" and "being happy with your job". As for the idea of not fitting in, I
think it's too much of an exaggeration to think that people won't tolerate a
few things here and there--but if you're entire view was different or fake to
begin with, well maybe you didn't belong after all... you wouldn't be happy
there anyway, so it's for the best.

~~~
sandworm
Having a similar mindset or outlook doesn't mean that people will get along.
Getting along is about conflict resolution and tolerance of other people. The
best teams are those with various personalities.

Look at the space program. All those astronauts put on a good show. They look
like they all play baseball together on weekends. In reality, they are bunch
of very assertive and competitive Type-A personalities that, absent the
overwhelming desire to fly into space, would rip each other to shreds. They
get the job done because it is a job, not highschool.

~~~
sheepmullet
Spot on! I know plenty of places that are "desperate" for talent but reject
clearly talented people because of "cultural fit".

For example I know a couple of tdd shops that have passed over quality
candidates because the candidates don't think tdd is super awesome. I'd
understand if the candidate refused to code in a tdd style but it's not even
that.....

------
brooksbp
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.

------
robotresearcher
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.

~~~
jeffbush
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.

------
pkaye
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...

------
techhackblob
If software development was not a creative process then such algorithmic/IQ
test interviews would be very relevant. Unfortunately for those wasting their
time with such interviews it is a creative process. A recent Nobel prize in
economics was given to Daniel Kahneman for his work proving such gut instinct
interviews are a failure. When I first left college and was bad at software
development I passed those tests, got into software firms and got my
experience. Now even though I write software everyday for my clients I
wouldn't pass any of those interviews. Zuckerberg is right - younger people
are smarter (at passing those tests).

~~~
Tloewald
Where was there any suggestion of algorithmic or IQ test interviewing?

~~~
techhackblob
I was commenting on the article's posts which had expanded into interviews for
such firms as Apple, Google etc. Apologies if that is not allowed.

------
pistle
From surveying the comments... If companies are willing to spend the time and
money vetting you, why are you not looking at them the same way?

Despite the headlines, market cap, cache of the name of the company on your
CV, how can't you have as many questions coming up to put at them as they have
for you?

The only time I've been turned down for a job that looked like it could have
"dream job" aspirations to it, I had to say that 1) I totally knew and agreed
with why they were declining and 2) felt they knew exactly why I would not
likely feel comfortable coming in with them in a way that fits just right.

You should be seeking out, within reason, what day 1, month 1, and year 1 are
going to be like. You should be seeing how they fit into your life path as
much as they are seeing how you are going to get them through the issues that
made the added headcount necessary.

What OP left me with, literally, was "I'm not a dummy b/c they brought me in."
It's such a dry, objective review that it makes me think they were along for
the ride instead of taking the wheel. It could well be just a personality-
based thing. The OP has an apparently sterile passion for design and/in
documentation.

Interviewers love passion and resonance - or at least they should at some
place you really want to be. Nobody should have to pry things out of you. And
then, they want to be able to agree with you and your view on technical
passions and interpersonal rapport. Are you hard-working, objectively
talented, opinionated-but-open, and do you seem ready and able to complement
or enhance them?

------
makeitsuckless
When I read these stories, I always wonder how many qualified people would
actually subject themselves to such a pathetically long interview process?

I imagine that companies with such processes only get candidates that are
extremely compliant and lack self-esteem. Because most people I know would
politely tell the employer to go f themselves after the 3rd screening call.

Are these long drawn out, humiliating application processes typically American
or does this happen in other countries as well?

~~~
sosborn
>Are these long drawn out, humiliating application processes typically
American or does this happen in other countries as well?

It happens in other countries too. It is really more a symptom of company size
than company nationality. The mega-corps all tend to do shit like this.

------
hyperliner
Unfortunately, laws make it really difficult to provide candid feedback to
candidates in the US.

I always call my candidates and ask one simple question when they don't get
the job and after I tell them they won't be getting the job: do you want the
usual HR rejection reason as in "you don't fit the profile we are looking for"
or "we have a candidate that better fits the business need," or do you want me
to give you 3 suggestions on how you could have done better? If the latter
(they always want feedback, don't we all?) then I go into very specific
behaviors. The majority of these tend to fall in two camps: you did not
prepare for the interview, or you did not demonstrate a specific skill or
experience and this is how I think you can get it.

100% of the people I have given feedback have never come back to sue my
company or me for rejecting them. Many have followed me and one has actually
followed me, interviewed at another place I went, and got the job then.

------
Mahn
Sounds like a pretty standard process, I was actually expecting it to be more
convoluted for a company of their size.

------
joslin01
Out of curiosity, why the title 700 Billion? What is the purpose of this in
how it relates to the article?

Regarding the article, yea, seems pretty standard. Sorry you didn't get the
job

~~~
stevenjohns
It could be for a number of reasons.

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).

~~~
freyr
5\. They have $700B, and even they can't they afford more than a "thanks but
no thanks."

------
dba7dba
I also recently went through an interview process lasting over 3+ weeks, 3
separate interviews with 4 different people. Initial phone interview and skype
for the other 2. Oh and add to that tech tests lasting over 3 hours, completed
after screening interview.

In the end I didn't get an offer, with a one liner explanation.

I was grateful that they even gave me a chance and hold no hard feeling
against them BUT I'm pissed about the waste, on my and their part. On the days
I had the interviews, I wasn't productive at all as I spent time preparing,
managing my nervousness (pacing around), and decompressing after interview.
Those are a few days I won't get back. Even without putting monetary value on
it, I think all can agree it is a big waste.

After all that, all I got was a stinking one liner explanation, that I wasn't
a good fit. What was the tech test for?

One person on the team I talked to seemed as if he hadn't seen my resume until
the interview time. He was going down my resume and asking questions and I
could tell that it was his first time reading it. And I also feel that was the
person that gave thumbs down.

I hope their accounting knows that 1 person cost the COMPANY nearly 6 man
hours of their employees, for nothing.

EDIT: From what I've seen previous jobs, managers and team members are asked
to interview the candidate, not necessarily say yes/no based on the resume
alone.

Not that anyone will listen but I think it would help if HR asked
managers/team-members to give up/down on each resume before calling in for
interview. If enough give down, don't call in for interview. Save time for
all.

------
drewblaisdell
> Overall, I’m pretty happy my work caught someone’s attention and that I had
> the opportunity to meet all these people.

This is a really cool way to sum up the article.

------
ryanSrich
"Talent Shortage"

~~~
GuiA
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](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)

~~~
jeffbush
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.

~~~
joesmo
When you're up against such a deadline, your manager has failed you, not the
other way around.

~~~
jeffbush
Companies shouldn't have deadlines?

~~~
joesmo
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.

~~~
jeffbush
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.

------
crimsonalucard
If you're too good, they often won't hire you for political reasons. It's
unjust but I think it happens a lot.

------
convivialdingo
Seriously, I think a couple of hours and a lunch is all that is needed to
consider most positions. Management and directors can be more prolonged.

Developing a workforce is about cultivating good leadership, a balanced
diversity of thought, improving raw talent and most importantly tenacity.

------
cpncrunch
I noticed quite a few grammatical errors while reading this blog post.
Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but if the person is looking for a job
writing documentation then it could be a problem.

Some examples:

>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.

>Calls are 30 minute-long, informal, you’re explained how the process works
and what to expect next.

>The first call was with an internal Technical Recruiter, given my interest, I
had a call with one other team lead before being redirected to the Developer
Publications lead.

(I have no idea what this last sentence actually means).

------
DyslexicAtheist
>> I invested around £4000 (~$6000) of my time (2 weeks @ £400/day rate) into
that article, I’ve written 8 of the total 16 topics I intended to, and
replicated dozens of Apple logos which I made freely available on Dribbble.
(terrible ROI)

that's dedication

>> So when Apple asks me if I want to help improve their Developer
Documentation: I’m in.

(rofl) I have never seen anyone put in so much effort/investment for so little
return. IMO his creativity and drive belongs in a start-up. pearls to pigs I
guess, but sure he doesn't see it that way

------
kkotak
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.

------
frade33
I really have no idea, what criteria is the most important for apple. However
for me, when hiring these points hold most value in the order they are
mentioned.

1\. Type of Person. (Preference to be given to a positive, honest, candid,
compassionate, less focused on money and more dedicated to and focused on
job/skills and friendly person).

2\. Skills level.

Author apparently failed at the money vs dedication. If you are more focused
on money than skills/job., you are a big no-no. in my books.

------
brooklyndude
My experience interviewing at Apple, don't let them know you know more then
them (guess common sense, did i get the "then & than right?), you ain't
getting the job. Sorry to say you have to dumb yourself down to work at these
major companies, it's a pretty big ego game at play.

Actually it's probably like that across the world, but sometimes you luck out
and actually get to work with just awesome people.

------
bonn1
Maybe Apple is overdoing the hiring process but I think it's the right
approach especially for a company like Apple. I rather risk to decline ten
good candidates instead of hiring one wrong one. Hiring not fitting people
will cost the company so much time and money that a expensive hiring process
is justified. Question is which hiring process leads to good fits only but
this is a different discussion.

------
vijucat
The "Are you good enough for us?" interview process is seriously broken, maybe
even neurotic, considering that the excessive focus on weeding out false
positives actually ends up rejecting too many good people such as you who
would end up contributing a LOT.

The inequation is :

Savings due to reducing false positives << Loss due to increased false
negatives.

 _10X lower_

It takes intelligence to realize this, because weeding out false positives
(LHS) is a Realized profit : your workplace is full of smart people and you
get to say, "See, our process works", while the RHS is an Unrealized loss :
you never got the chance to quantify how much you lost by rejecting the next
amazing employee.

IMHO, everybody needs to get off their high horse and start accepting
employees after _gasp_ just a cursory inspection of resumes / qualifications /
blog posts, or even more radically, random _double gasp_ selection of 10% of
candidates who meet the minimum criteria. Give everyone a long probation
period, and allowing them to seek feedback frequently as to how they can
influence the decision to hire them on a more permanent basis so that the
final decision will not be a surprise binary event.

Hire for passion and ability, not just "the best"; how can you know the best
among a sample if you never gave them a chance to score _at the job_ (NOT
_looking good in an interview_ )?

I have been surprised many times by hiring non-superstars and then finding out
that there are many dimensions to doing a job, such as perseverance and
sincerity, that they can bring to the table that can tilt the final score in
their favour.

~~~
gummadi
>> Give everyone a long probation period, and allowing them to seek feedback
frequently as to how they can influence the decision to hire them on a more
permanent basis so that the final decision will not be a surprise binary
event.

Hypothetically, let's assume every company follows this method and around 30%
of the employees who went through long probation period didn't make it
through. Wouldn't that leave the employees in an even worse situation than
getting rejected immediately, since they resigned their current job and now
everyone in his professional circle knows that he or she didn't make it
through company X's probation period? In addition to that, the employer will
also accrue a lot more negative publicity from the employees who didn't make
it through.

~~~
vijucat
This will not be as big a problem as you assume because the "everyone in his
professional circle who knows that he or she didn't make it through company
X's probation period" would also have gotten their fair chance to try their
hand at being a Google or Apple employee, to aim as high as possible, and
would have faced the same rate of rejection.

It is only a problem if failing probation is a huge black mark. If there are a
large number of people for whom the company-employee fit didn't occur, the
word "probation" would lose it's sting. Maybe we can call it an
"apprenticeship" period? Or other innocuous term without previous negative
connotation.

> In addition to that, the employer will also accrue a lot more negative
> publicity from the employees who didn't make it through.

The same could be said of ex-employees, too.

In general, the problem is the neurosis of giving too much importance to
"failure" or "probation". It is ironic that this is the case even in a startup
discussion board :-)

------
thrillgore
I find that ranting about a company's hiring procedures is a quick way for
their HR department to quickly strike your name from the "Future Followup"
file.

Apple is the richest company on Earth. Criticize their means and methods when
they're in Chapter 11.

~~~
driverdan
If a company can't take criticism then why would you want to work there? That
sounds like an awful place to work.

------
dpweb
Can't help but wonder how Jobs or Woz would have reacted to that when they
were young?

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.

------
igauravsehrawat
I don't get it. They have the right to reject. What's wrong ?If you want to
change their interview process get selected and change it !

Don't defame google,apple,fb ..etc interview process. (Humble request)

------
thombrn
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.

~~~
joslin01
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.

------
Vecrios
Isn't this why they are a top-tier company? I mean, their selectivity is what
makes their company great as a whole.

------
hans
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.

~~~
rhizome
LinkedIn did the same to me.

------
mikekchar
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.

~~~
merusame
"Present your accomplishments with no embellishment or sales pitch. If they
are impressive, then the interviewer will be impressed." \--> I can sign that.

------
kjs3
I got roped into one of these idiotic interviews at a Very Important Company.

Them: How would you solve (well understood, theoretical and tedious to solve
problem). Me: I'd Google it. Them: That's cheating. I want to understand how
you think about the problem. Me: We're not in school. You'd be paying me to be
efficient and solve problems. Why would I waste time on something I can
Google. That's how I think about the problem.

And that was about the end of it.

------
yeukhon
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.

