I get LinkedIn In-Mail from both Facebook and Google recruiters periodically. It's nice to feel wanted, and I get a certain enjoyment out of politely rejecting google recruiters. This is a lot more fun than subjecting myself to their grueling and ego shattering interview process.

As to your second question, some people are smart enough to know that running a business is not one of their core competencies.

It depends on what you want to work on. There are problems that only get interesting at scale; people who are good at solving them will likely always be working square jobs, because square jobs willol haved the capital to misallocate and create said interesting-scale problems. There are also problems where there is no immediately obvious way to disrupt an existing market, many of which are fascinating. And there are many, many, many talented hackers whose risk appetite is such that they're happy to trade ev for security.

And then again, too, "talent" is too gnarled a word to be meaningful intercontextually. The "talents" that Schmidt is shopping for may very well be disjoint from those that pg seeks out.

I was in the interview process (was just about to schedule an on-site) with Google a couple weeks ago, before I decided to go to Matasano. They were pushing pretty hard and rushing a lot (since I had other offers/potential offers), but in the end I just decided I didn't want to work in the team I was interviewing for, and decided not to waste any more of their time. From what I've heard, they decide whether or not they want you pretty early on, and will bend over backwards to accommodate you in most cases if they really want you, it just wasn't for me. (Not quite the aggressive recruitment most people think of, but I figure it's a data point nonetheless.)

I have offers from both and am deciding presently. I don't know that they're "aggressively" recruiting me though.

The reason I'd rather work for them than start my own company (now) is that I'm interested in infrastructure. I could go start a company and be an architecture astronaut (and never sell any infrastructure to anyone), or I could go to Google/Facebook and learn the kind of domain specific knowledge that I can only get at a Google or Facebook.

I also get e-mails every 6 months from Google.

A few years ago Google required a 3.75 or higher college GPA. That is an amazing GPA for the college I went to, so I've never applied. I wonder if they have relaxed that criteria.

'In my dressing room, I don't want any brown M&Ms!'

When you are perceived to be a rock star, people are willing to accommodate even seemingly non-sensical requests. Google wants a 3.75+ GPA, thats what they get. Google wants XYZ cert, thats what they get. Google take 5 months to hire you, so be it. It may piss people off individually, but as long as there is a steady stream of applicants, it doesn't immediately impact Google.

Of course the more truly talented, qualified people they dick around with and piss off, the more their reputation begins to slide from 'the best' to 'eccentric' to 'ridiculous'. I think Google is now experiencing some repurcussions that to them seems like a 'talent war'.

There is some flexibility, but they are strict. Strict in weird ways. I'm actually a former Googler who can't get back in because my GPA. Go figure! :-/

This makes no sense. Surely Google believes GPA is a good predictor of performance, but isn't on the job performance the ultimate measurement? How long did you work there?

Really boggles my mind, but I think it has to do with how the recruiters get rated. I imagine the lower the percentage of successful applicants, the lower their performance.

I worked there a bit over two years.

In retrospect, my college GPA of 3.1415 doesn't seem so smart. =)

(Note: I didn't hit it exactly; it was a while ago but I think I recall I ended up at 3.139.)

Better than my college GPA of did not finish:) I had a 3-something when I left...except that I didn't take a final or two that last semester (weather was really nice).

I think the GPA thing at Google is just stupidly silly. I've accomplished quite a bit in my career. Thankfully I don't really need Google, but it does drive me nuts that there is a place that I can't work:)

I personally know a number of people working at Google who not only didn't maintain that kind of GPA, they didn't graduate at all.

GPA is only useful as a filter for people just out of college. If you've been in the work force for a while, there are better measures available.

I think if someone can achieve a GPA that is equal to Pi out to 5+ significant digits then Google should hire them instantly. :)

3.1421 here :) That was a happy accident. At least it wasn't approaching e.

What makes you think they had that requirement? At least their current job listings don't mention anything like that (http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/uslocations/mountain-view...).

My suggestion would be that if you want to join Google then just send them your resume. Let them decide whether or not they want you rather than deciding that for them.

I get emails from both every 6 month (and tell them each time to come again 6 months later still, as I continue to run my own business).

Two friends of mine, fine engineers with background in database systems and large-scale distributed systems, have got offers from both and had successfully played one off the other. One of them ended up in Facebook and the other one in Google.

It's a war, no doubt.

I get email from Google recruiters every couple of months, you'd think they'd lay off now that I've told them a few times I'm a full time student... and will be for another year and a half. I've also been pulled in for a contracting job, but that wasn't from a recruiter.

They email every six months.