[sriramk]

This is pretty interesting since I know of a Microsoft person who was talking to some startups in the Bay Area to find a potential role (this person is one of the most talented engineer/product manager I've met, has run some very critical initiatives for MSFT and extremely well-versed in both the Microsoft and the non-Microsoft landscape and is looking to move to the Bay Area from Seattle for personal reasons).

There were atleast two really terrible experiences with very well-known startups (think 'often on HN's front page'). In one case, the interviewer asked "So, you work in Microsoft - have you heard of this thing called an iPhone?" . And in another interview, the person at the other end couldn't hide his disdain for Microsoft and Microsoft-people in general throughout the interview.

I think there's an opportunity here for startups to hire some great engineers when they look past stereotypes (which is really what the OP's post is reflecting). Going into a hiring discussion with a preconceived notion is always a bad idea (and this post is full of stereotypes with the FB one probably being the most negative).

[MediaSquirrel]

And yet...stereotypes often come from somewhere, no? Would you say that these stereotypes are inaccurate in terms of the general picture they paint?

[enjo]

I would most definitely say that. I've hired from corporate cultures far more rigorous than Microsofts (Samsung springs to mind) with great results. A smart engineer who can get things done is a strong engineer regardless of where they've cut their teeth.

One only needs to look at all of the startups that IBM, famous for their bureaucratic structure, too see what rubbish this is.

[tomorrow_today]

Divisions and collaborative ventures that start in a large companies' research lab and eventually split off or are sold to another party are not startups.