At the ~500 person tech company I work for, the first goal of the recruitment and interview process is to decide if the candidate would be a good fit for the role, and the second goal is to convince the candidate that they should accept the job if offered.

I recently interviewed at both Apple and Amazon. None of the interviewers or recruiters at either company tried to sell me on the job and I left both interviews not wanting to work there. My theory is that Apple and Amazon don't spend time trying to sell the company because they already have more than enough willing applicants for each position. Is the same true for other large tech companies?

My impression was they expect you to desperately want to work there and be willing to submissively beg to be accepted. That's not how my mind works so it just seemed repulsive.

Google had a guy take me to lunch as well. I suppose this is part of their process. I was surprised it was a random developer (a quiet, uninterested, also slightly miserable young guy), rather than someone who was otherwise involved in my (potential) recruitment. It seemed like a lost opportunity for them to get to know something about me other than whether I could do simple coding exercises quickly and accurately under pressure without recourse to external resources. (I can, but apparently not quite quickly or accurately enough for them). I was amazed that they were prepared to fly me to another country (NZ to Australia), but at no stage showed the slightest interest in me personally or anything I had ever done. I am 59 years old, I've been working with code since I was 21 and worked out how to program a significant embedded application on an Intel 8085 CPU using nothing but the manufacturer's data sheets and a simple hex keyboard and display breadboard target. I've learned a few useful skills along the way.

> but at no stage showed the slightest interest in me personally or anything I had ever done.

At least based on what I read about them (and their approach to their customers) google does seem slightly autistic (in a sense) as a company.

> "It seemed like a lost opportunity for them to get to know something about me"

Don't know the policy at Google but lunch is usually intentionally supposed to be a break from the interview process. Having somebody grilling the candidate while they are trying to eat defeats that purpose.

> "I am 59 years old, I've been working with code since I was 21 and worked out how to program a significant embedded application on an Intel 8085 CPU using nothing but the manufacturer's data sheets and a simple hex keyboard and display breadboard target."

At a FAANG, nearly everybody has similar stories, so that's not particularly distinguishing.

I don't doubt that the Google people were very accomplished, but it still seems logical for them to find out something about where my skills and strengths lie. I didn't want to be grilled at lunch. Normal practice in my experience is to make lunch a pleasant experience for all involved at the same time providing an opportunity for both sides to check for cultural fit etc. etc. A win win basically.

I don't think this is representative.

I did about 20+ technical interviews at Google/Facebook over the last 2 years.

Overall, the interviewers were competent. Sometimes you could tell that they didn't really enjoy interviewing people but it was ok. I only had one interviewer I'd consider bad (gave confused advice to lead me to his solution), but maybe it was just a personality mismatch.

I had better experience with more senior interviewers too, and I found Facebook better than Google (although similar), on every respects (choice of questions, team matching process, more interesting projects...).

My main complaint is that I've found the whole process random. Right now I'm in the team matching phase at Google, but not sure it'll go through (and it's not the best time).

> I did about 20+ technical interviews at Google/Facebook over the last 2 years.

That seems like a huge number of interviews. Are you counting each interviewer as a distinct interview? Even then, that seems like a lot for 2 years!

I applied two times at Facebook, and two times at Google (they contacted me each time at one year interval). Each time was 0 to 2 screening interviews, then 5 to 7 on-site interviews. Yes, I'm counting each interviewer as a separate interview (not counting discussions with the recruiter, but counting "culture fit" interviews).

Not entirely on topic, but could you share what your preparation was like for these interviews? Resources/timelines etc

You can have a look at the Leetcode forums. A lot of people share their experience there.

I think it says a lot more about the individual interviewer than anything about the company.

I've had great interviews with a company, and then I've had one where the person was looking for me to say 'base64" (which I wasn't actually aware of at the time!) even though I was explaining the same exact concept from the same company. The whole process is capricious.

If the whole process is capricious, it says a lot more about the company than about any individual interviewer.

IMO, "capricious" is a word that could be used to describe any interview process that isn't a structured, formalized process. You don't get a good signal out of ad hoc interviews, you can't calibrate across interviewers, and you can't compare accurately across candidates, so why bother?