I’m currently an Amazon engineer - it was my first job out of college. I worked really damn hard to get this job, and now everyone (including you, a Facebook/Google employee) seem to think I’m stupid and inferior because I didn’t pass my Google/Facebook onsites.
I’ve studied for hundreds of hours but the best company I’ve cracked is a hedge fund. It’s comments like these that make me wonder if I should just end it all.
Sorry if what I say sounds harsh, but you remind me of a former colleague who really beat himself up for not getting admission into the top 2 ranked schools, and having to settle for the one ranked 3rd in the country. He thought he was worthless.
The problems with your thought process:
1. Believing Google/Facebook/Amazon/any company's hiring process to be a representative of your ability. It is well known that companies like Google have set up their process to minimize bad hires, and that rejecting qualified applicants is the side effect of this. If you got rejected, it means nothing. Look up Type I vs Type II errors in statistics (or Alpha vs Beta testing).
2. Since when is getting hired into any company a badge of honor? It's not an accomplishment. Doing/building something that has impact is an accomplishment. And if you look around, you'll find most SW folks who had an impact are not in these companies. You'll also find that the average Google/Facebook employee has not, and never will, achieved much (which, BTW is totally OK!)
3. Similar to 2 above, you'll always be miserable if you allow others to set standards for you. Set your own standards!
4. In my opinion, if you're using your career as a major factor in self worth, you are setting yourself up for all kinds of psychological problems. The purpose of your job is to get paid. The purpose of acquiring money is to help you achieve your goals - it's not a goal in itself. If you happen to find a job that gives you meaning beyond just the paycheck, that's great. But it's not the norm, and even when you do find one, in most cases it doesn't stay that way. Things change at work, and that meaningful job could easily become a meaningless one overnight due to senior management.
Find purpose in life that is not tied to your job.
Even if they aren't representative of ability it's a strong signal if I keep getting rejected from Facebook (3 times for internship with final interviews, 2 times for onsite) and Google (2 times for internship, 1 time for full time onsite). You yourself say in a different comment that Amazon is easier to get into - that just means I'm less intelligent right? I did get into Citadel, but that was via their JavaScript domain specific interview process that had (as my friend described it) "mind-numbingly easy questions".
It's easy to say that I shouldn't make getting hired into a company as a badge of honor...but I truly have no other accomplishments to speak of, even within Amazon. All of my friends seem to think I'm some sort of disappointment, or at least not successful.
I wish I could avoid using my career as a factor for my self worth, but I don't make enough money to achieve my goals and won't for 2 promotions from now. It really feels like i'm both stuck and limited by my inherited intelligence.
Since a lot of this has been about Google vs Amazon, I should add: I respect Amazon a lot more than Google. Amazon truly is a giant, and in recent years its successes are a lot more impressive than Google's.
To begin with, Google's main accomplishment is ads. It's their cash cow. For the most part, Google is a one trick pony. Amazon is much more diversified.
Amazon is way better than Google when it comes to execution. When Amazon steps into a market, everyone is terrified. They tend to dominate whatever they step into: warehouses, cloud, ebooks, smart speakers. And now they're trying to get into retail and shipping. Let's see how that goes.
Presently, there's no reason for me to prefer Netflix over Amazon Prime Video.
They also have owned IMDB since forever, and it's quite cool that they've allowed it to remain a great resource for movie enthusiasts!
They own Goodreads as well, although I think LibraryThing is better.
I expected Whole Foods to get worse once they bought it, but it doesn't seem to have, and the culture there just prior to Amazon scooping it up was quite poor (previous owner became so metric driven that employees were often in tears and were looking forward to working for Amazon - can't find recent resources to see how that played out).
Google, on the other hand, has a huge list of endeavors that they completely dropped the ball on. Lots of canceled products, and the existing ones are lethargic. Google Nest is not really the best, and most reviews of thermostats agree, although it perhaps does sell more because of the hype. They're branching off into smart security cameras, but again are not considered the best. I think they've given up on smart speakers - I've had their speakers for 2 years, and in those 2 years I haven't noticed any improvements, new features, etc. In fact, their voice recognition has regressed. I expect Google will cancel this at some point - I regret filling my house with them.
Google is known to have horrible support for their products. Amazon has its issues as well, but most will trust Amazon more for support for things like Cloud than they would Google.
Google's Internet/cell phone plans are horrible. Lots of terrible reviews.
The Chromecast is occasionally useful, but my Roku is much better.
Google got into cable TV via the Internet, but I don't think their offering is any better than Sling's.
From 2000-2010, Google was very innovative, and produced a lot of stuff of value. In the last decade, everything has been more or less incremental. I struggle to think of any way my interaction with Google products (Youtube, etc) has improved in the last decade. They're fundamentally the same.
> To begin with, Google's main accomplishment is ads.
Google's ad business doesn't exist in a vacuum. AdWords is a license to print money because Google search is so good. Without Google Search, Google's ad business would be <10% of what it currently is. So how can you argue that's not an accomplishment?
AdWords is about the only form of online advertising that I personally have no issue with. You have the intent of the user to find something and they've told you what they're looking for. As long as an ad is clearly marked as such, I have no issue with including ads in search results. It may be what the user is looking for.
> When Amazon steps into a market, everyone is terrified.
Like the other giants, there are things Amazon is good at and things they are not good at. Prime Video (which you mention) is no Netflix and honestly only exists because it was bundled with a service actually want (ie Prime free 2-day shipping).
> They also have owned IMDB since forever, and it's quite cool that they've allowed it to remain a great resource for movie enthusiasts!
IMDB, for me, has reached the point where I'll prefer Wikipedia if at all possible. Particularly on mobile, I tend to find it's a horrible experience. On mobile you have the extra step of "see full cast". Finding TV episode synopses and cast is always an exercise in "where have they hidden it this week". I'd say it's stagnated, if anything.
I do respect the Amazon strategy of acquiring leading lead-generating sites (eg dpreview). That's not typically what Google does. More often than not, Google is acquiring the talent rather than the tech. It's a different strategy and not necessarily worse.
> Amazon has its issues as well,
That's an understatement. Amazon has a counterfeit product problem that I'm honestly shocked hasn't made them the target of some AG investigation yet. Dodgy sellers buy up product pages for a good product and replace it with something crappy, keeping all the reviews. Amazon also prefers their own products in a way that's arguably anticompetitive. Amazon provides logistical services that i've certainly read some horror stories about (eg look into the Louqe Ghost S1 US distribution through Amazon).
Amazon's stranglehold on online selling is (IMHO) the best case out of any the tech giants for anticompetitive behaviour.
> Google's ad business doesn't exist in a vacuum. AdWords is a license to print money because Google search is so good. Without Google Search, Google's ad business would be <10% of what it currently is. So how can you argue that's not an accomplishment?
I don't disagree with you, but in a sense you are saying what I'm saying, with just words substituted. Yes, you could view their expertise in ads, or you could view their expertise in search. Either way: One trick pony.
> AdWords is about the only form of online advertising that I personally have no issue with. You have the intent of the user to find something and they've told you what they're looking for. As long as an ad is clearly marked as such, I have no issue with including ads in search results. It may be what the user is looking for.
Yes, but Google is involved in several other dark patterns (tracking users across sites, etc).
> Prime Video (which you mention) is no Netflix and honestly only exists because it was bundled with a service actually want (ie Prime free 2-day shipping).
I'm a big Netflix fan, but I noticed yesterday that it has been months since I watched something on it. I originally signed up for Netflix's streaming to get access to a lot of existing content (i.e. not produced by Netflix). I suspect today you'll get a lot more of that with Prime than with Netflix. At the moment, I'd hesitate to say that Amazon Prime is clearly better than Netflix, but I'm equally hesitant to say that of Netflix. Were I a new user with no prior knowledge, it's not at all clear to me that Netflix is better. It's certainly not apparent to me that Netflix will maintain their lead for long. And just as you complain about IMDB's redesigns, Netflix's constant experiments with their UI really annoys me.
(Oh, and just a few days ago "My List" was empty in Netflix - not sure if they did that intentionally or it was a bug and they fixed it).
(It's amusing you say that people don't really want Prime Video but want 2 day shipping - it's the opposite with me - but I can see I'm far from the norm).
Yes, IMDB's constant redesigns are annoying, but if you have an account, you can adjust your settings to make the layout relatively stable. When I look up a movie, the site looks the same as it did 10-15 years ago. For me, that's a sign someone in Amazon actually cares.
> That's an understatement. Amazon has a counterfeit product problem that I'm honestly shocked hasn't made them the target of some AG investigation yet. Dodgy sellers buy up product pages for a good product and replace it with something crappy, keeping all the reviews. Amazon also prefers their own products in a way that's arguably anticompetitive.
Oh, I hate buying anything from Amazon.com. The web site sucks. The fake product and fake reviews issues sucks. I now almost always comparison shop and if the price is not too different I buy from elsewhere. When Amazon touts its "Customer obsession", it really annoys the heck out of me as the experience with Amazon.com is so poor for me.
The point is they do dominate that sector, and they really earned that title. It didn't just happen because they were early or lucky. They work (and continue to work) aggressively to dominate it.
How many ventures can you list that Amazon went into and completely floundered? Now do the same exercise with Google. Google often goes into a market with an "I have a neat idea I want to try out" mentality. Amazon goes into something with the intention of succeeding big. Their pivot to cloud was brilliant.
The main reason I don't want to work for them is their poor vesting schedule and poor paid time off policies.
(Oh, and on the side: Washington Post - it's a crappy newspaper. Not sure why Jeff was enamored with it).
> Even if they aren't representative of ability it's a strong signal if I keep getting rejected from Facebook (3 times for internship with final interviews, 2 times for onsite) and Google (2 times for internship, 1 time for full time onsite).
Strong signal of what, exactly, and how are you connecting the dots? It's natural for the brain to fill a void with faulty speculation, and that seems to be what you're doing: "If I didn't get in, there must be a rational explanation." (faulty speculation 1). "That explanation is I'm not that smart." (faulty speculation 2).
This type of thought pattern is what I often refer to as "Out of ignorance comes certainty." Realize these are speculations, and go and seek concrete information to validate them.
FWIW, I've been rejected by all 3 - twice by Amazon. Yet it didn't do anything to my feeling of self worth. I work a job in a company which, although they're a giant in the field they're in, I (and most engineers there) earn less than you.
It also doesn't hurt that I know people who've left my company to work for Amazon. I know their abilities and achievements, and while decently intelligent, they are not at all remarkable. I can do things they can't. The same goes for two former coworkers who are in Facebook (both decently smart, and one of them often credits me for teaching him various stuff that made him a better developer). I know people in all 3 companies who struggle with functional programming and calculus (something every one in every engineering major outside of computers has to become quite competent at).
You want me to throw away all that data and focus on the fact that I didn't get a job offer? Why would I take concrete information I have and replace it with nebulous information (namely: I have no idea why I got rejected).
It also doesn't hurt that I've sat in interview committees in my company and I've seen how it is the norm that a candidate is rejected (or hired) capriciously. People have all kinds of weird ideas on what a good candidate is. Now I imagine that FAANG companies are a bit more structured in their interviewing and this is less of a factor, but I'm sure it's still a factor. You can go and read on Medium how Google interviewers evaluate candidates and it won't be hard to spot problematic themes. I recently read something from a LinkedIn interviewer who described what he felt was a "red flag" in a candidate's coding style (essentially fell into the pragmatic vs elegant bucket). Amusingly, I had an interview 2 days ago elsewhere where the interviewer and I discussed this exact issue, and we both felt that what the LinkedIn guy felt was a red flag was actually good coding practice.
Along those lines, I wish I could find the article (perhaps it was on HBR?) that pointed out that studies showed that the variance in an employee's annual rating was mostly due to the variance in the managers' beliefs in what constitutes a good performance, and had little to do with the variance in the employees' performance. In a company like mine, this is very obvious. Yet so many employees tie their ego to that rating.
> It's easy to say that I shouldn't make getting hired into a company as a badge of honor...but I truly have no other accomplishments to speak of, even within Amazon. All of my friends seem to think I'm some sort of disappointment, or at least not successful.
Your attitude reminds me of my experiences with universities. I went to a mediocre undergrad and a top ranked grad program. The differences between the students in both existed, but were not as significant as one would expect. One of my friends had only been in top schools, and he had a vastly inflated idea of how much better an education he was receiving compared to an average school. And then he went on to interact with people from those schools (via conferences), and the experience really shook him. He found way too many people at no-name schools doing more impressive research than he was.
One of my undergrad friends ended up working for a small business and got paid extremely low. I went on to work for one of the top companies. Yet I've never achieved anything at the top company that matches what he's done. I recall advice I saw when I was in school: The opportunities to do innovative work in a small shop are much higher than in a big company because resources are much more limited.
Yeah - I got into a big company and get paid a lot more than he does, but he is more accomplished.
All those friends who think you're a disappointment - what have they accomplished beyond getting into those companies?
And the most, most important thing of all: Is your definition of accomplishment tied to work? And if so, why? I once helped someone out who was in dire need. I put in a fair amount of effort to help him, and it was risky as there was no guarantee it would. Fortunately, it all worked out and the person is in a much better position now, and doing well.
It is very unlikely that any accomplishment at work will match that. There's a whole world out there outside of SW and outside of work.
> You yourself say in a different comment that Amazon is easier to get into - that just means I'm less intelligent right?
People have studied intelligence, and published papers on it, for decades. I don't recall seeing any that used "Getting into Google/Facebook" as a measure of intelligence.
If the experts on intelligence don't do it, why are you doing it?
Once again, I would strongly suggest pondering over what standards you should have that aren't dictated by peer pressure. And I don't think the harsh part of my earlier comment has sinked in: Should you get into Google tomorrow, it is not an achievement. Realize you'll be the same person tomorrow as you are today. Getting in didn't suddenly make you more intelligent.
(I want to get into Google too, but my goals are higher compensation and access to interesting work - the former is guaranteed, the latter isn't. And frankly, Amazon is doing better on the latter metric).
Most people who do not get into any FAANG company are a lot happier than you are. I suggest you find out why.
> If you're capable of getting a software engineering job at Amazon, you're capable of getting much, much better benefits elsewhere.
which I think says the opposite of what you're implying. I'm saying you're capable of getting a much better benefit package as evidenced by the fact that you got a job at Amazon.
Amazon is (IMHO) short-changing you. Don't sell yourself short. If that was the best offer you had out of college, believe me I get it. And if you're happy there now then I'm happy for you.
But pointing out how Amazon falls short of competitors with a roughly equivalent hiring bar is not intended an attack on you or your choices.
I get what you're saying, but the evidence in my experience seems to prove otherwise if I can't get into Google or Facebook after trying nearly a dozen times between them.
I make around ~$150k a year right now. If I get promoted this year, I'll make $180k. Google engineers start at around $200k. By nature of the free market of labor it seems like I'm only worth about 75% of a Google engineer at maximum to work on identical things.
Folks have told me to "just go to Google" don't understand the anguish of being worth 75% of a human at best, and not having the intelligence to pass an interview loop anywhere consistently.
> Folks have told me to "just go to Google" don't understand the anguish of being worth 75% of a human at best, and not having the intelligence to pass an interview loop anywhere consistently.
The majority of SW developers in the US make less than $100K right out of college. Are you suggesting they are less than 50% of a human?
And most Google employees make less than what the top earners in hedge funds make. Does that make Google employees less human?
I'm not a counselor, and I suggest you seek one. However, the warning signal in your comment is "Folks have told me..." Why are you letting other people tell you what constitutes value?
Sorry that I keep riddling my comments with anecdotes and stories, but here's another one: A friend of mine spent over a decade trying to get a PhD. He's smart, but there's a lot more to smartness that is needed to get one. He kept having problems (some from his side, some external). I told him for years to quit - the PhD isn't all that great a goal. But he insisted on sticking to it so as not to be a failure. Last year I had to tell him "Be prepared for the inevitable depression after you get the PhD and then realize all that effort wasn't worth it."
He graduated recently. Let's see how he holds up.
If Google is good for you, I hope you get in. But be prepared to discover the opposite if you do get in.
Your username and the tone of your message feel a lot like imposter syndrome to me. You passed the interview, you kept the job, and are doing the exact same work.
You are not "worth less" than anyone else based on Amazon's miserly compensation, it's that other FAANG weren't smart enough to grab you when they had the chance.
I believe both FB and Google are actively hiring experienced engineers right now, apply every time you can until you get the job. I know getting rejected sucks and it feels like a statement about personal value but in the end it's a screening process that tries to guesstimate your potential for success, it's not an indictment of your abilities.
The first thing to ask yourself -- are you happy? Are you working on problems that you think are interesting? Use that as a guide to determine if you need to change positions or companies. Benefits and comp are always great, but at a certain point you also start to examine your role in the world and the impact that you can have. Never sell yourself short, always look forward, and try to use the resources you have available to develop your skills.
I've been with Amazon for about 15 years. There are a lot of employees who choose to be at Amazon and not Google/FB. There are pros/cons with each of the FAANGs and really any job. I find the problem space of Amazon's physical business to be fascinating to work on whereas I couldn't give a hoot about online advertising. With regards to benefits -- I've made enough in RSU appreciation for those differences to not matter. But I encourage people to carefully consider their own circumstances and look closely at long-term growth potential of whatever companies they're considering.
Amazon has its shortcomings but it still has a lot of smart and qualified people (like you, I assume!)
Do you best, be aware of your worth, and if/when you find a better opportunity, grab it!
It’s not good to beat yourself up for “failing” to get into Google or some more desirable company. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows that these companies (including Amazon!) frequently reject qualified candidates. They’re tuned to avoid bad hires at all costs. Basically if any interviewer has a bad feeling about a candidate, they’ll get rejected.
I mean these sorts of things would imply that Amazon doesn't though, right? Why would anybody accept the "worst" for no benefit unless that was the best they got? In a free labor market that just means my inherent value is lower.
Its indeed true that Google rejects qualified candidates. But if I miss a question during an onsite, that just means I'm unqualified.
I’ve studied for hundreds of hours but the best company I’ve cracked is a hedge fund. It’s comments like these that make me wonder if I should just end it all.