3 ms·

Going back to the "if" here - the output he did send them may also have been his sample code of sorts. When I interview people we bandy about a lot of "ifs".

by rit 16y ago

Going back to the "if" here - the output he did send them may also have been his sample code of sorts. When I interview people we bandy about a lot of "ifs". But if the interviews don't go well, or if they submit crappy sample code, things tend to peter out from there. The "if" in this question which is clearly missing but implied (at least in dealing with American companies) is "If there's something of value here, and the two parties are a good fit, and we think we can make this work...". There was no verbal contract here, or even an offer to acquire. It was a job interview, and he didn't get the job.

pyre 16y ago
> It was a job interview, and he didn't get the job. I would think it awfully poor form if the hiring manager spend the entire time looking out the window, doodling in a notebook, or taking 5 minutes to respond after the interviewee answered his/her question during the interview. (Or just spending the entire glued to his/her BlackBerry, and when the interviewee asks if he/she should just leave, the response is "I'm busy right now, things are hectic around here.")
- rit 16y ago
  But that isn't what happened here. They didn't fly him to Apple and have him sit there for weeks. He solicited them with something he purported to have built, then essentially said "Oh, I need access to your private data to really make it work". They obviously saw some first run data and decided not to continue. They then did the equivalent of: Thanks for your time, we'll get back to you It just took them awhile to make a decision. Also - I don't think anyone had necessarily decided "No" until he gave Steve an ultimatum. Steve seems to be a pretty stochastic guy - in this case he took it as "Fine, then fuck off". If you've managed to get hiring decisions right there in the interview good for you - usually you have to wait a bit for them to decide ;)
  - pyre 16y ago
    > If you've managed to get hiring decisions right there in > the interview good for you - usually you have to wait a > bit for them to decide ;) But that's the thing. The interview was still not over. They were still in the phase that is akin to asking him questions. They wanted to see how well his algorithm would work on live data. I guess a better analogy would be if the interviewer asked the interviewee a question and then started talking on the phone rather than pay attention for the interviewee's answer. Or if you want to take the analogy to "waiting for a reply after the interview," then this is more like Apple stalling on making a decision on hiring him. They've interviewed him, and he pings them every week, but a couple of months later they still claim to have made no decision while continuously claiming that a decision is right around the corner and/or just needs one more person's approval/review.

by rit 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

> It was a job interview, and he didn't get the job. I would think it awfully poor form if the hiring manager spend the entire time looking out the window, doodling in a notebook, or taking 5 minutes to respond after the interviewee answered his/her question during the interview. (Or just spending the entire glued to his/her BlackBerry, and when the interviewee asks if he/she should just leave, the response is "I'm busy right now, things are hectic around here.")

rit 16y ago
But that isn't what happened here. They didn't fly him to Apple and have him sit there for weeks. He solicited them with something he purported to have built, then essentially said "Oh, I need access to your private data to really make it work". They obviously saw some first run data and decided not to continue. They then did the equivalent of: Thanks for your time, we'll get back to you It just took them awhile to make a decision. Also - I don't think anyone had necessarily decided "No" until he gave Steve an ultimatum. Steve seems to be a pretty stochastic guy - in this case he took it as "Fine, then fuck off". If you've managed to get hiring decisions right there in the interview good for you - usually you have to wait a bit for them to decide ;)
- pyre 16y ago
  > If you've managed to get hiring decisions right there in > the interview good for you - usually you have to wait a > bit for them to decide ;) But that's the thing. The interview was still not over. They were still in the phase that is akin to asking him questions. They wanted to see how well his algorithm would work on live data. I guess a better analogy would be if the interviewer asked the interviewee a question and then started talking on the phone rather than pay attention for the interviewee's answer. Or if you want to take the analogy to "waiting for a reply after the interview," then this is more like Apple stalling on making a decision on hiring him. They've interviewed him, and he pings them every week, but a couple of months later they still claim to have made no decision while continuously claiming that a decision is right around the corner and/or just needs one more person's approval/review.