3 ms·

>> How do people get the next job after Apple? Let's say someone has worked there for a good couple of years - are they not allowed to share anything about that

>> How do people get the next job after Apple? Let's say someone has worked there for a good couple of years - are they not allowed to share anything about that period in the job interviews or on Linkedin? You have to be creative and toe the line. I have just spent some time interviewing after working at a place with a hardcore non disclosure agreement. My LinkedIn for this job is a brief blurb that reveals the scope of my work/seniority without revealing details about the company. In the Apple case it could be something like "led team of X engineers developing the core server side infrastructure for payments." This is OK because everyone knows that Apple deals with payments and that there must be people working on the backend of it, and its meaningful that you led people in that context. (or whatever one did.) My resume goes into a tiny bit more detail but also says "details protected by NDA." It's important because w/o saying that it just looks like you had no accomplishments. In interviews you can usually manage by being abstract enough. EG: you can say "I had to design a system that handled millions of transactions per day" and then talk about high level things that go into the design of such things, you don't need to say what the system specifically did or exactly how many millions of hits it got. You can be explicit about the NDA here too and people have always been very respectful of it. However, in my case - most of my experience was prior to this company so even if the question is "tell me about how you did X at your last job", I just say "that gets too close to the NDA, but let me tell you how I did that at my previous role." Basically, it's not a problem, and you gain way more from having Apple on your resume than you lose from not speaking about certain details.

thr0w__4w4y 6y ago
Interviewing someone like yourself isn't hard at all... I've interviewed hundreds of people (which isn't thin air here on HN) and I've pretty much seen it all. Generally speaking, in an interview, I'm trying to assess /what you can do/. Which is not "what you have done". I've interviewed at least 2 people, who were hired against my recommendation, in different companies, that clearly fleeced everyone else. In both cases, the candidate walked the walk & talked the talk, but something seemed off. "Sociopath" is a term that is thrown around loosely but I think it applies to both candidates (one man, one woman). In both cases, they'd convinced most of the interviewers they were very strong in areas they'd never professionally tackled before. I'm less interested in what the candidate claims to have done; that could be reality, or a well-rehearsed and "lived" fantasy. But by talking about hard engineering problems in real-time, with "curve balls", I can usually tell if the candidate has "the right stuff" or not. Even if it's just aptitude. I can train smart people who handle themselves well. But if the candidate can't field tough questions and unexpected (off-script) questions, that's enough for me to pass on the candidate at the level I'm hiring.

thr0w__4w4y 6y ago

Interviewing someone like yourself isn't hard at all... I've interviewed hundreds of people (which isn't thin air here on HN) and I've pretty much seen it all. Generally speaking, in an interview, I'm trying to assess /what you can do/. Which is not "what you have done". I've interviewed at least 2 people, who were hired against my recommendation, in different companies, that clearly fleeced everyone else. In both cases, the candidate walked the walk & talked the talk, but something seemed off. "Sociopath" is a term that is thrown around loosely but I think it applies to both candidates (one man, one woman). In both cases, they'd convinced most of the interviewers they were very strong in areas they'd never professionally tackled before. I'm less interested in what the candidate claims to have done; that could be reality, or a well-rehearsed and "lived" fantasy. But by talking about hard engineering problems in real-time, with "curve balls", I can usually tell if the candidate has "the right stuff" or not. Even if it's just aptitude. I can train smart people who handle themselves well. But if the candidate can't field tough questions and unexpected (off-script) questions, that's enough for me to pass on the candidate at the level I'm hiring.