Recently I’ve been bumping into more and more people who’ve either left Google to come to Microsoft or got offers from both companies and picked Microsoft over Google. I believe this is part of a larger trend especially since I’ve seen lots of people who left the company for “greener pastures” return in the past year (at least 8 people I know personally have rejoined) . However in this blog post I’ll stick to talking about people who’ve chosen Microsoft over Google.

First of all there’s the post by Sergey Solyanik entitled Back to Microsoft where he primarily gripes about the culture and lack of career development at Google, some key excerpts are

Last week I left Google to go back to Microsoft, where I started this Monday (and so not surprisingly, I was too busy to blog about it)

So why did I leave?

There are many things about Google that are not great, and merit improvement. There are plenty of silly politics, underperformance, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, and things that are plain stupid. I will not write about these things here because they are immaterial. I did not leave because of them. No company has achieved the status of the perfect workplace, and no one ever will.

I left because Microsoft turned out to be the right place for me.

Google software business is divided between producing the "eye candy" - web properties that are designed to amuse and attract people - and the infrastructure required to support them. Some of the web properties are useful (some extremely useful - search), but most of them primarily help people waste time online (blogger, youtube, orkut, etc)

This orientation towards cool, but not necessarilly useful or essential software really affects the way the software engineering is done. Everything is pretty much run by the engineering - PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process. While they do exist in theory, there are too few of them to matter.

On one hand, there are beneficial effects - it is easy to ship software quickly…On the other hand, I was using Google software - a lot of it - in the last year, and slick as it is, there's just too much of it that is regularly broken. It seems like every week 10% of all the features are broken in one or the other browser. And it's a different 10% every week - the old bugs are getting fixed, the new ones introduced. This across Blogger, Gmail, Google Docs, Maps, and more

The culture part is very important here - you can spend more time fixing bugs, you can introduce processes to improve things, but it is very, very hard to change the culture. And the culture at Google values "coolness" tremendously, and the quality of service not as much. At least in the places where I worked.

The second reason I left Google was because I realized that I am not excited by the individual contributor role any more, and I don't want to become a manager at Google.

The Google Manager is a very interesting phenomenon. On one hand, they usually have a LOT of people from different businesses reporting to them, and are perennially very busy.

On the other hand, in my year at Google, I could not figure out what was it they were doing. The better manager that I had collected feedback from my peers and gave it to me. There was no other (observable by me) impact on Google. The worse manager that I had did not do even that, so for me as a manager he was a complete no-op. I asked quite a few other engineers from senior to senior staff levels that had spent far more time at Google than I, and they didn't know either. I am not making this up!

Sergey isn’t the only senior engineer I know who  has contributed significantly to Google projects and then decided Microsoft was a better fit for him. Danny Thorpe who worked on Google Gears is back at Microsoft for his second stint working on developer technologies related to Windows Live.  These aren’t the only folks I’ve seen who’ve decided to make the switch from the big G to the b0rg, these are just the ones who have blogs that I can point at.

Unsurprisingly, the fact that Google isn’t a good place for senior developers is also becoming clearly evident in their interview processes. Take this post from Svetlin Nakov entitled Rejected a Program Manager Position at Microsoft Dublin - My Successful Interview at Microsoft where he concludes

My Experience at Interviews with Microsoft and Google

Few months ago I was interviewed for a software engineer in Google Zurich. If I need to compare Microsoft and Google, I should tell it in short: Google sux! Here are my reasons for this:

1) Google interview were not professional. It was like Olympiad in Informatics. Google asked me only about algorithms and data structures, nothing about software technologies and software engineering. It was obvious that they do not care that I had 12 years software engineering experience. They just ignored this. The only think Google wants to know about their candidates are their algorithms and analytical thinking skills. Nothing about technology, nothing about engineering.

2) Google employ everybody as junior developer, ignoring the existing experience. It is nice to work in Google if it is your first job, really nice, but if you have 12 years of experience with lots of languages, technologies and platforms, at lots of senior positions, you should expect higher position in Google, right?

3) Microsoft have really good interview process. People working in Microsoft are relly very smart and skillful. Their process is far ahead of Google. Their quality of development is far ahead of Google. Their management is ahead of Google and their recruitment is ahead of Google.

Microsoft is Better Place to Work than Google

At my interviews I was asking my interviewers in both Microsoft and Google a lot about the development process, engineering and technologies. I was asking also my colleagues working in these companies. I found for myself that Microsoft is better organized, managed and structured. Microsoft do software development in more professional way than Google. Their engineers are better. Their development process is better. Their products are better. Their technologies are better. Their interviews are better. Google was like a kindergarden - young and not experienced enough people, an office full of fun and entertainment, interviews typical for junior people and lack of traditions in development of high quality software products.

Based on my observations, I have theory that Google’s big problem is that the company hasn’t realized that it isn’t a startup anymore. This disconnect between the company’s status and it’s perception of itself manifests in a number of ways

  1. Startups don’t have a career path for their employees. Does anyone at Facebook know what they want to be in five years besides rich? However once riches are no longer guaranteed and the stock isn’t firing on all cylinders (GOOG is underperforming both the NASDAQ and DOW Jones industrial average this year) then you need to have a better career plan for your employees that goes beyond “free lunches and all the foosball you can handle".

  2. There is no legacy code at a startup. When your code base is young, it isn’t a big deal to have developers checking in new features after an overnight coding fit powered by caffeine and pizza. For the most part, the code base shouldn’t be large enough or interdependent enough for one change to cause issues. However it is practically a law of software development that the older your code gets the more lines of code it accumulates and the more closely coupled your modules become. This means changing things in one part of the code can have adverse effects in another. 

    As all organizations mature they tend to add PROCESS. These processes exist to insulate the companies from the mistakes that occur after a company gets to a certain size and can no longer trust its employees to always do the right thing. Requiring code reviews, design specifications, black box & whitebox & unit testing, usability studies, threat models, etc are all the kinds of overhead that differentiate a mature software development shop from a “fly by the seat of your pants” startup. However once you’ve been through enough fire drills, some of those processes don’t sound as bad as they once did. This is why senior developers value them while junior developers don’t since the latter haven’t been around the block enough.

  3. There is less politics at a startup. In any activity where humans have to come together collaboratively to achieve a goal, there will always be people with different agendas. The more people you add to the mix, the more agendas you have to contend with. Doing things by consensus is OK when you have to get consensus from two or three people who sit in the same hallway as you. It’s a totally different ball game when you need to gain it from lots of people from across a diverse company working on different projects in different regions of the world who have different perspectives on how to solve your problems. At Google, even hiring an undergraduate candidate has to go through several layers of committees which means hiring managers need to possess some political savvy if they want to get their candidates approved.  The founders of Dodgeball quit the Google after their startup was acquired after they realized that they didn’t have the political savvy to get resources allocated to their project.

The fact that Google is having problems retaining employees isn't news, Fortune wrote an article about it just a few months ago. The technology press makes it seem like people are ditching Google for hot startups like FriendFeed and Facebook. However the truth is more nuanced than that. Now that Google is just another big software company, lots of people are comparing it to other big software companies like Microsoft and finding it lacking.

Now Playing: Queen - Under Pressure (feat. David Bowie)


Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:28:43 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Great post - inline with conversations I have with people everyday. Glad you're blogging again, it keeps me from having to!
Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:38:40 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Interesting post, especially about this part:

Requiring code reviews, design specifications, black box & whitebox & unit testing, usability studies, threat models, etc are all the kinds of overhead that differentiate a mature software development shop by a “fly by the seat of your pants” startup.

Just in terms of code review, I do want to see what your perspective is about the difference between Google and Microsoft. I recently chatted with an old friend from school who went to work for Google and I was quite amazed at their Code Review process: based on from Mondrian (you can see a less sophisticated version at this google app engine app. (Which, as I talked with a friend who works at RIM, they have a very similar process.) At Google every checkin requires a code review and approval through Mondrian, and the knowledge of exchange between engineers are consolidated through the tool.

As a Softie I can only testify that the Code Review process and Spec writing process differs widely between groups, and there is not a unified Code Review process or tool. I always thought that it's an area of engineering that we could work on...
Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:35:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I have nothin to say to someone who feels "blogger, orkut and youtube" waste of time! you made the right decision to move to MS
Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:46:02 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Hey Dare,

I think you view here is unbalanced. I think that you are highlighting Google's faults and totally ignoring the situation at Microsoft.

I'm not going to say that Google is perfect but I think that have some of the details wrong. There are growing pains but I've been impressed at how the company continues to face them head on. Google is certainly a different company from the one I started at almost 4 years ago. In some ways better and some ways not. To address some of your points:
1. Google is working hard to provide a career path for employees. Even when I joined there was a much better career path for individual contributor engineers than at MS. I felt like I had hit a bit of a glass ceiling at MS without taking on a large number of reports. I don't feel that way at Google.
2. There is and always has been legacy code. I can't go into details but Google works to make it everyones problem. Part of the difference is that when you are writing a service running on your hardware, you can throw old stuff away. Legacy isn't nearly as big a problem at Google as it is at Microsoft as we don't have nearly as much installed software.
3. There are politics at Google, but it is a different kind than at Microsoft. If you compare something like the NT war team of old or a BillG review (both now gone or changed beyond recognition) with a Google EMG review (Executive Management Group) the differences are striking. Microsoft is super aggressive and abrasive with competition within the company being the default mode. Google *is* more consensus driven but leans toward the passive aggressive. Instead of Bill swearing at you that your product sucks, you'll just be ignored as people around you move on to more interesting things. A lot of people who make the transition from MS to Google are frustrated by this as they can't take a subtle hint.
4. Recruiting at Google is very different than Microsoft. It does take a long time and it is very thorough. I've heard stories of arrogance and incompetence from interviewers and recruiters that make me cringe. I wish we did a better job here. However, the committee model is much more egalitarian and fair than the Microsoft model. Generally there are no "Hiring Managers" for good or ill. We hire people in to Engineering and help them find a good project as they are coming in. This helps eliminate fiefdoms and the "fill a req at any cost" mentality that can be pervasive at Microsoft. This also works to keep the bar high and even across the company. At the rate that Microsoft is hiring and from what I saw in the boom years, this is a real problem there.

The main point is that working at Google is very different than working at Microsoft. I'm not surprised that in some places the transplant fails. In general Google requires people who are more on the "self starter" side of things vs the "write to the spec" side. Some people just can't deal with that and label it "chaos". It really just takes all types and some people fit better in one vs. the other. Add to this some "sour grapes" from those who applied and were rejected (there are so many names you'd recognize...) and you can paint a pretty negative picture if you want to.

Personally I am happier on the whole at Google than I was at Microsoft. In my opinion, Google wins on the "fun technology" front, the passion and responsibilities to customers and overall trust of the Engineer/employee.

This isn't to say I would never work for Microsoft again but the team and offer would have to be really really good. As for people going from MS->Google->MS, I just think that displays a general lack of imagination. With so many opportunities out there, why return to MS vs. trying out something new? If and when I leave Google I'm much much more likely to do something new and different than go back to Microsoft.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:18:40 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Their quality of development is far ahead of Google

yes, that's true for sure... look at all the IE godness, and no more BSODs in Vista, and... Vista the usability, the exe candy, the productivity gaing, that's wonderfull.

I stoped reading after this line, when someone says M$ development is good, I know it's FUD.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:17:42 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Let's get back to the technical talk and working together :)


Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:33:39 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I think like what I'm reading.Now I really want to work for Google after reading your blog entry!
Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:12:30 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Someone should warn all MS folks who think life is only about spreadsheets and CRM that they should just stay where they are. No one even whisper anything about Age of Empires anyone near them. Google may well need to make some serious changes in the way they do business, but I'm not convinced that a metamorphosis into a bleak sea of suits devoid of all creativity is one of those necessary changes.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:50:26 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Joe Beda said:
"In general Google requires people who are more on the "self starter" side of things vs the "write to the spec" side. Some people just can't deal with that and label it "chaos". It really just takes all types and some people fit better in one vs. the other. Add to this some "sour grapes" from those who applied and were rejected (there are so many names you'd recognize...) and you can paint a pretty negative picture if you want to."

That is exactly the opposite of the impressions I've had. I've found that at Microsoft one of the greatest assets you can have is passion for a particular product or area, and that it can be very rewarding for a developer to drive change into the product plan and specs. Of course every group is different, but that's part of what I love.

At Google it seems like you're not supposed to care what you work on or whether it's the right thing to build. You're just a cog in a machine, and you can be swapped around or installed in place of any other cog and expected to do exactly the same task in exactly the same way.
Monday, June 30, 2008 12:12:55 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Tahelia - At Microsoft we know how to have fun *without* spending 80% of our waking hours huddled in cubicles =P
Monday, June 30, 2008 1:22:10 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Actually, 'Your own thing' > MSFT

If you have the talent and drive then it's almost criminal not to do your own thing with the opportunities and technologies we have today - why on earth would someone want to work at a 76,000 person company? I'm sure Dare (and Brandon) love where they are, but my advice would be to go make the most of your life and create something for yourself. It's not a MSFT vs Google - that's just the past vs the next to be past.

People get institutionalized to think they need a corporate employer like Microsoft, but it's usually just a crutch for a lack of true self-belief (or balls).

For those at Microsoft (or Google) go take a good hard look at what you did for the last 12 months - did you make a difference in anything? Be honest - what's holding you back?

PS For every bozo you meet at work think of them as a 'tax' on your future...
Martin B
Monday, June 30, 2008 1:22:20 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
To all the blogging complainers about Google. I hate Google more than some of you. But if you think Blogger and youtube are a waste of time, your probably still living in 1997. Indeed go back to Microsoft.

Microsoft could not make a viable video service, search or blogging service. But MS is in a bad shape too. You can't even blog directly from Word - in 2008.

We need Microsoft to compete with Google and create real web products, not pseudo services that push Microsoft software.
Monday, June 30, 2008 2:06:56 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
This definitely sounds biased. Whether the culture, process, management is better or worse at MSFT vs. GOOG, I think it is pretty indisputable that GOOG's web applications are far and away better than MSFT's. There's no comparison. You don't need to look much further than Hotmail vs. GMail, but if you did, you wouldn't see much better competition for GOOG's other web apps.
Monday, June 30, 2008 2:30:07 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Google software business is divided between producing the "eye candy" - web properties that are designed to amuse and attract people - and the infrastructure required to support them. Some of the web properties are useful (some extremely useful - search), but most of them primarily help people waste time online (blogger, youtube, orkut, etc)

It cracks me up that this was written on ... a blog.

Nice to have you back, Dare.
Monday, June 30, 2008 2:48:46 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)'s funny. how much did you paid by MSFT to post shit like this ? it's very unfair to compair google and microsoft like this.
Monday, June 30, 2008 4:38:08 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
@jinzo: High quality development doesn't mean no bug. And no, I don't work for MS, nor paid by them. I just find it so unfair and idiotic when people like you always pull that stinking old BSOD argument when they diss MS products. Of course, MS products are far from being perfect but before you badmouth MS, try to name me another company which offers an OS that can support literally tens of thousands of hardware and countless software, that satisfies the consumer world but also accomodates the enterprise space. I'm sure you can't, so STFU. Your MS bashing is so yesterday, try to change your tune.
Monday, June 30, 2008 5:56:10 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Your entire article could be improved by editing it down to this sentence:

"I left because Microsoft turned out to be the right place for me. "

All the paragraphs arguing that Microsoft is a better workplace than Google strike me as opinions masquerading as facts.
Monday, June 30, 2008 6:27:51 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Brandon, I'm a Tablet PC lover, so I know how to have fun walking from one cubicle to another. As a PC Support Tech (i.e., staff member responsible for holding the end-users' hands when they cry), I know the value of huddling in someone else's hiding place -- er, I mean cubicle. Makes me chuckle just thinking about it. But hey, I'd love to learn how Microsoft folks have fun during their days. Would they show me if I drove up to Heartland? Redmond's a little far away :D
Monday, June 30, 2008 6:28:24 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I expected little more detail than elementary "it's better because it's better" argument for your reasoning. Your whole section about the interview didn't have any meat in them but mostly meaningless fluff of "Microsoft is better at this. Google isn't. Microsoft is better at that. Google isn't." It'd help if you actually went into detail and say WHY? or HOW? Anyone can say what you just said without any experience. I came to the article thinking my attitude toward Google might change, but I'm leaving your site thinking "how hard is Microsoft trying to badmouth Google?"
Monday, June 30, 2008 8:35:00 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
About 10 years ago I stopped using Wordperfect 5.1 and started using Word instead.

Last year I stopped using Word and started using and instead.
Monday, June 30, 2008 9:27:20 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
All issues pointed in this post are related to process. Google is much youger that Microsoft and with time its process will mature. I am sure at some point MS must also have had faced similar mess. If MS came out it, so will any other company.
Monday, June 30, 2008 10:34:35 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Uhh -- very insightful - I was already skeptical about Google work environment as they provide free lunch to its employee but we know "There is no such thing called free lunch"
Monday, June 30, 2008 2:44:27 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
The "blogger, youtube, orkut" comment is so ridiculous that I must stop thinking about it immediately lest I contract spinning dizzy from mental ROFLing. Dare! That you (who surely knows better) would force drivel like that into service of an apparently very weak argument ...

The first thing that did spring into my mind upon reading the "Experience at Interviews" was Peter Norvig's piece on hiring.

The (slightly exaggerated) picture that results is that MSFT is a great place for people who like to code to spec and value "experience" in, with high probability, obsolete "software technologies" over analytical thinking (and that this experience must surely entitle them to senior positions).
Monday, June 30, 2008 3:13:22 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
This is fodder for upper management at MSFT that might get uncomfortable with Dare pointing out the negatives in their products. The _only_ reason that I read this blog is Dare's very intelligent discussions of Microsoft technology.

Somewhere out in Google-land, there's a bunch of ex-Microsofties that get together and complain just as bitterly about their former employer.

This rant is a little too pat for me to take it seriously.
Monday, June 30, 2008 3:54:01 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I have to add to my comment that the rest of Sergey's posting is anything but drivel, quite to the contrary.
Monday, June 30, 2008 4:20:09 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I think it's too bad that a lot of know-nothings are flaming you here and suggesting you were paid by MSFT.

However, I'd like to point out that Google's software development process is extremely process-driven. It's not at all startup-style cowboy coding. Google has probably the largest Perforce depot in existence, and there is a company-wide process for doing code review to ensure high quality code. You are also required to do extensive testing before you can submit a change.

So Google may have it's faults, but from point #2, I can see that you're really only extrapolating what Google might be like from what little evidence you have.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 12:18:29 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I couldn't agree more. I'm a software engineer with 2 degrees and 11-12 years experience (and I'm only 26). Not bragging, but if you name the task and the language, I can get it done.

I made it all the way to a 3rd phone interview with Google. They guy on the phone said he'd never had an applicant finish the technical interview as fast and as properly as I had. He said that they would: "Either we will bring you in for an in-person interview, OR we'll do another phone interview with you."

2 days later, on a Sunday afternoon, I got a rejection letter email from Google in my mailbox. No reason given, but if I had any questions or comments, I could email back.

I did email back inquiring as to why I had only positive feedback but "was not a fit at this time." No response. After this point was when I no longer felt bad about being rejected from Google. This article further cements why I'm glad I don't work for them.

People need to get out of the mindset of supporting giants in the tech world just because they are giants (defacto support). What is good for the first half of the decade, might be the most ripped-on, hacked-on, and exploited software/company for the next half of the decade. I think that's how Google is progressing.
Mike Something
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 1:07:19 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I am a senior engineer with about 14 years experience. A fresher interviewed me and asked this as part of my interview - "What happens when you type in your browser?" I thought it was a trick question but answered him anyway, explaining how DNS look up works, how packets get routed, how routers use BGP and other algorithms to route packets, etc. and how the requested website loads in the browser. However, I got a distinct feeling that this was going to be a Comp Science Olympiad. And I was right. The next question was about Binary Trees, and the usual algorithms. Now I know these algorithms and know how they work, but asking that I write code on a white board was a bit too much. Still I did write pseudocode and explained how it works. That was not enough for the interviewer as I was asked smaller details and nuances. Finally, I asked the interviewer - Will I be working on these algorithms all the time? Will I be inventing new algorithms? The position I have applied for is in no way connected to writing Search algorithms.

I was never asked about project/product development, methodologies, how technologies should be selected for development based on customer needs, nothing! Just computer science quizzes! What is this? Despite answering all questions, and having been selected too, I refused the job, because none of the interviwers could clearly tell me what my career path would be. Would I still be writing code in a tech lead position, will I get to manage a team, nothing!

And whatever the gurus say, I firmly believe that unless you have a product or service to sell, you cannot survive in the long run. Right now Google only has AdWords as their sole source of income. All their other applications are always in Beta and their Google Checkout is a miserable flop. When talking about Checkout to some colleagues at Cisco, I was surprised to learn that people dont want to trust their money and credit card information to a product which has Beta on its label. Google has removed the Beta label now, but still, where money is concerned first impressions are lasting.

I think its not a good place for folks who are senior in their career, as there is no clear career path. I dont want to be a tech lead or software architect all my life for any amount of free food and massages.
Cisco Router
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 10:12:18 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
As someone who really only works with Microsoft technologies it is pretty obvious to me that one area which Microsoft don't quite excel in IS the startup's. Because they don't act like that internally, they DO find it hard to support us externally.

I know they have the business startup team and so on, but their code support has always been towards the enterprise and they really could do with a group focusing on startp solutions - the hassle with getting REST support was ridiculous and almost caused me to drop it.

They architectures and code environments are superior i'd agree, but they really need some folks helping the smaller people... and i mean real help, not, "ah, but you CAN do that if you do this, click that, add this attribute, change this config ...." and so on.

That is where google win just now - their code architectures are web 2.0 and that is all about marketing and social nets! Word spreads easy.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008 3:30:49 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Google is for young-minded developers who enjoy working in what they know (and studied to do so), in a cool environment with high levels of interpersonal collaboration.

MS is for arrogant software engineers who think is all about money and career, and refuse to understand that some other people consider that the best reward is just to deliver good, cool, useful products for just reputation and to gain the respect of his peers. They cannot stand that this lifestyle works for many people.

Despite of all of this, if you don't like where you are it's ok to move on... but it seems you have personal issues against Google.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 4:45:13 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Anyone who would considering working with Microsoft's technologies at all has issues and clearly is thinking about money and job security and not comparing the engineering work.

Google? Python, C, C++. Mostly backend engineering and web applications.

Microsoft? Uhh, ASP, C#, Microsoft Visual Developer Tool 2008 Premium Edition What the F---? Mostly really crappy web applications that only work in IE with ActiveX enabled, or desktop software programming targeting an API that hasn't changed since Windows 95.

If you want to compare Google culture with other web startups, that is fair. To compare working at Google with working at Microsoft you must be ignoring the engineering completely. I seriously wonder if this and the other blog postings aren't paid postings.
A Person
Thursday, July 3, 2008 8:08:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Great post - thanks for sharing. Microsoft is a great place to work, with loads of brilliant, motivated people. And definitely not arrogant and money-minded as some point out. I moved from Google to Microsoft too, and I agree with many things pointed out in the post.
Thursday, July 3, 2008 8:20:56 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I have heard from at least 3 of my friends that the interview process at Google sucks.
Comments are closed.