[sftwds]

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?

[president]

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.

[int_19h]

> 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.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

> 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.