Hacker News Reader

Comment by sftwds | Hacker News Reader

I assumed that Apple has very similar weight on a resume as Google, is that not correct?

I'm sure there is weight in having Apple on your resume but Google engineers are generally sought after for SE positions. I hear managers pining over Google candidates all the time at my company.

As a Silicon Valley outsider that surprises me. I've heard that interviews at all the FAANG companies are all difficult (as an aside, why is Microsoft never in that list??). For organizations the size of Google and Apple, there are bound to be employees who squeaked by their interviews and would not have been hired at the other company. Why does "Google" on a resume look better than "Apple"? Is the Google interview that much more selective than Apple's?

In a nutshell, Google has a more rigorous interview process with less loopholes. I believe this is primarily due to the fact that they have a hiring committee and paper trail for approving hires rather than giving full control to hiring managers.

> I've heard that interviews at all the FAANG companies are all difficult (as an aside, why is Microsoft never in that list??)

Because the original definition of FAANG was for the investor crowd, and looked at companies solely from the perspective of their stock performance and "potential growth". Microsoft wasn't supposed to be good at either back when this was coined.

We now use it in very different contexts, though, such as when discussing employment practices and internal work culture of those companies. In that particular context, I think Microsoft does belong there.

> I've heard that interviews at all the FAANG companies are all difficult (as an aside, why is Microsoft never in that list??)

I always assumed it was because they're not headquartered in Silicon Valley.

Arguing about which company's name looks better on a resume is an irrelevant distraction that avoids addressing the actual problem: standing up to fight against something may require personal sacrifices. In general, anybody with salary has the opportunity to quit. This is certainly true for most tech jobs.

I understand if someone working variable part time[1] hours for minimum wage cannot afford to lose their job. There isn't any room for sacrifices when you already have to e.g. decide each month if you can afford to pay for both food and utilities, or if you aren't going to have hot water for a while[2]. Yet even though they face far higher risks than the average tech worker, sometimes they still choose to make sacrifices[3].

Yes, you might get fired. You might have to adjust your standard of living. Banding together into larger groups can help to mitigate some of these costs, but regardless, the average tech worker is fortunate enough to be able to make a significant sacrifice.

[ This is why some of us try to warn about growing problems early, when the cost of counteraction is low. Unfortunately, most people decide to ignore the problem because it isn't an obvious, widespread, damaging problem. ~sigh~ ]

[1] different, computer-optimized schedule each week, could be anything that still counts as part time (including 0)

[2] https://medium.com/@sarahkendzior/the-minimum-wage-worker-st...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_for_$15

perhaps not quite the same level but I would assume anyone with any FAANG on their resume wouldn't be in the category of "need their job."

Not all FAANG are created equal

You're repeatedly arguing that Apple employees are prisoners in their jobs because they only work for the 4th or 5th most impressive looking company to have on one's CV instead of the first? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

It's not really as far-fetched as it sounds, although I am exaggerating as I mentioned earlier. Have you ever spoken to people that worked at Apple vs Google? There is quite a difference in mentality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com