My experience of interviewing for a job at Apple

I tend to err on the side of "I suck" when an interview doesn't go my way. Some people err on the side where everyone else is the problem. Different ways to deal with butt hurt.

Disclaimer: I have interviewed at Google and other hard places with mixed results.

The main issue for me is that I find it ridiculous to go to N teleconference interviews and then get turned down in person. I'm sure it's for some stupid reason like "all of our team like sports and you don't seem quite enthusiastic about it"

They push for you to "be honest" but that's only an excuse for turning you down. Give them the answers they want to hear and you'll be fine. Also the pressure of the moment is important.

(Also I would like to see their faces when my MBP's Facetime wouldn't connect - talk about a reliable software... not)

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.

On the contrary, I've been in a position that I have to decide for applicants ( by doing technical interview ) if they could do the work or can not do it. It was a pleasant job when I can see some sparks of commitment and joy of doing the work. But talking more with the candidates it looked like they had a really hard time, being screened by the HR team, since they didn't have proper profile indicators, like "keywords in the CV", "past experience", "good university degree", "recommendations" and so on.

Does it lead to overall better hires than a less grueling process? I have no idea. But they must think it does.

Maybe I should have recognized they were impossible and addressed the interviewer. They were usually very number-theory heavy problems. After a bit of research, I determined that it wasn't really answerable, and people have done PHD work at MIT, CMU, etc.. to investigate the question I was given 30 minutes to work on.

I don't lie about my qualifications. I'm not a PHD student, there is nothing on my resume or CV that would imply I'd be aware of some obscure (not something I'd consider important to comp sci like crypto) area of research... but still, asked these really oddball questions.

Every time I think about applying to, e.g. Google, and start looking at how I need to prepare, I realize it's going to take around 40hrs of algorithm prep followed by a gruelling interview process. And at the end, I may fail due to interview nerves or whatever. It's hard to justify so much time. Then again, maybe working at these big companies is really worth it (many people seem to think so!).

Nowadays, I won't put up with more than a couple hours of interview. 1 hour I think is a good amount. Granted I work on contract and this is how things tend to be done in London. For a permanent role, my limit would probably be 4 hours on site + 3-4 hours off site (like a coding test).

From my experience, it's less the on-command hypothetical coding exercises (which you will get, and they will be challenging), but more so if you pick up an unfortunate draw of one of your anti-loopers (see famous Steve Yegge post).

I ultimately interviewed in early January with a team that really wanted me, but was rejected at a late stage executive committee review (surprising even my potential hiring manager and the recruiter). While I can't say for certain the precise factors that impacted my candidacy, I'm reasonably sure a significant component was one particular on-site interview that was almost a year ago. That particular interview was awkward right from the opening non-technical questions. Not sure if my interviewer was having a bad day. I'm not sure how I was scored, but I feel it was a "B" performance for me, the others felt like "As". I will say that its sometimes hard to gauge one's on performance as the interviewers were all nice and innately would not display much signs of frustration or dissatisfaction for a candidate to get the feedback signals that might be noticeable at other job interviews.

In the end, they seem to require near unanimous consent to complete the hiring process.

For those reluctant to try, I'd strongly recommend making an initial attempt at a Google job. You'll meet some remarkably nice, smart people and have some great discussions. While I can't be certain (as I didn't succeed), you don't need to be 100% perfect on your interviews. Quick, insightful and on the right track are important though. You do need to be smart, know what you are doing, and practice a bit on programming brain teasers (which should be fun for the right person).

IMHO, its worth the initial attempt, but if things don't work out the in first round of on-site interviews, it may be impossible to overcome that in later rounds, much to my dismay. The only downside is that you might convince yourself that you really want to work there and you'll have to face reality again if things don't work out. Don't be afraid to try.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

In other words, just another unsuccessful interview, nothing unusual here, nor anything that Apple did badly or wrong.

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.

Tell me more about the skills shortage.

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.

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.

> It's a job, not a country club.

Yes, it's a job, but your ability to deliver on your work is not defined merely by private metrics like how fast you type, how many lines of code you can write a day, or even how knowledgeable and experienced you are about C++. Pretty much every job that you might apply to involves very large amounts of communication with your colleagues. When that communication breaks down (which it does even when you are a good culture fit), all sorts of elements come into play to help get things back on track. Also, when there is a need for rapid change (which there is on an almost daily basis in any company that's not on a straight path to the cemetery), communication and how well you gel with the rest of your team becomes the critical factor for how fast that change can happen.

"It's a job, not a computer game," I would reply. You can play your game by yourself with no interactions. Jobs require mature people who know how to communicate and behave in the target environment.

> 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.

If a company hires based on superficial answers like this, and thinks they're hiring based on culture fit, they're totally missing the point and they'll probably fail. Culture fit is at the same time far more subtle and far more concrete than this. Superficial features like whether you say that you're willing to work weekends or not are irrelevant. However, little and big details like how you walk down the street, whether you are open to someone questioning your ideas, whether you let someone else walk through the door first, whether you are a well rounded person with more to bring than just "I'm a great programmer", and, indeed, whether you recognise that you do want to work with people that you like and get along with, whether you you care about what kind of people you're going to be working with - individually those might be easy to fake, but as a whole, it's as hard to fake that general picture as it is to fake knowing about programming (to a programmer) when you're not a programmer. Even if you learn stuff by rote, details will slip.

> 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?

That's the message, perhaps, if the company sending that message is totally stupid. Yes, culture fit matters, and yes, people can drift out of culture fit. But this is not something that happens suddenly, it happens over a long period. People don't suddenly come to work one day with a completely different outlook on how they want to behave at work. Obviously, if their definition of culture fit is based on childish, superficial details like whether you wear a suit, then yes, you'll get dumb behaviour from said companies.

My experience is that, quite unlike what you describe, organisations with culture fit enable people to stick out more. Because you know you're surrounded by relatively like-minded people, you tend to feel more comfortable being yourself. On the other hand, in an environment with a bland mix of employees with no consideration of culture fit, people tend to much more harshly punish people who stick out. Take a company like Zappos, which definitely cares about culture fit, and has as one of its explicit values "be weird", and compare the types of behaviours you see in that company to what you'd get somewhere like UBS or any typical traditional large corporate, which don't tend to care about culture fit, and you will easily see that people at Zappos tend to be much more willing to stick out - it's the ones working in the banks that have to wear masks all day.

> Employees and prospective employees should be judged on on their work product, not on their ability to emotionally camouflage themselves.

See above point - it's not about emotional camouflage, unless you're in a dumb company that doesn't understand the point of culture fit. It's about being emotionally intelligent and well matched to the people you'll be working with, so you feel comfortable being yourself around them, and don't have all this extra friction of working with people you don't really like or get along with.

> Did Office Space teach us nothing?

Yes, it taught us that the superficial understanding of culture you're describing can be implemented in horrible and somewhat comical (if you're not stuck in it) ways. It taught us that "pieces of flair" is a terrible way to measure enthusiasm, that "hawaiian shirt day" is ridiculous, that bland cultures generate zero loyalty or wellbeing, that culture, or lack thereof, can be a ruthlessly efficient demotivator.

In other words, it taught us that actual culture fit really does matter.

Funny thing: at country clubs, "culture fit" used to be a nice way of saying that we had better keep the Jews, Chinese, and Italians out, and that anyone darker-skinned than that will be automatically assumed to be an employee.

There could be any number of reasons someone might not appear to "fit" on a given interview day, which wouldn't necessarily apply in them in the day-to-day - jet lag, the stress of the interview process, being under the weather and many more...

People and cultures adapt over time, through contact with each other; if you're denying good candidates because of their "fit" in the now, you're artificially limiting yourself for the future.

Culture is also wether to be a perfectionist or to ship things now, even if they have bugs. To spend time sharing your knowledge with others or to document the code. To create a design or to quickly do what the customer wants. To generate comprehensive documentation, or to give personalised support. To tolerate brilliant aholes (hey, they are geniuses after all) or not.

All those things are different approaches to work, and being in places where the culture is different of your own can be a pain for both sides.

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.

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.

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).

(the question of whether companies actually need employees of that caliber for building mobile apps is a entirely different one)

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.

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.