Began with a phone call with HR, followed by a phone interview with the hiring manager; then was invited for on-site at Sunnyvale office. There were five interviewers (except the HR person) with one hour assigned to each of them.
Coding test was fairly easy. Other technical questions (mostly audio processing related) were reasonable and I answered as best as I could. Behavioral questions were also as expected (usual questions). I answered reasonably well. I still don't understand why I didn't get an offer. Except, as I recall, one interviewer seemed to have had a problem with me. He must have seen me or known of me from one of the conferences in the past. The problem was, he appeared to have a wrong idea about my background and specialty in my PhD. He was cynical about me not answering smoothly some of questions that were clearly out of my specialty several times and at the end he said 'you don't know this kind of stuff and teach at university?' I said, 'No that's not what I teach. I teach this, this and that courses.' Unfortunately the time was up and the next interviewer had to start; I had no way to clarify further or defend myself.
The reason I marked the interview experience negative, although there was nothing strikingly negative (except for this one guy), is the following. First, each interviewer seemed to have just too many interview questions they were trying to cover. One hour is too short to cover everything--coding, problem solving, other specific technical questions, and behavioral questions. Why was everyone trying to do everything (except the "bar raiser" who admitted he wasn't in the team but doing only the behavioral part)?
We all know that each of those behavioral questions is tough--they require some thinking and may take longer than 5-10 min to answer. Several times I felt I was being pushed to stop my answer in the middle because there was next question to move on. They seemed care less about finding out the true character of mine in those tough situations than getting answers scratching on the surface and checking their own list. What's the point then?
Oh, to make it worse, one of behavioral questions was asked by two interviewers (so obviously they do not coordinate questions to cover among themselves). I thought I answered well for the first time. I told the second interviewer that the question had been asked and I already gave my best answer. I asked him if I could answer similar way; he said, 'no, answer from a different angle.' F__. I had to squeeze my answer another way, which might not have been as good as the first one. I didn't feel bad about it on the spot, but in hindsight, this is another example of their failure to evaluate me appropriately because their inability to be flexible.
Second, I have 15 years of experience after PhD. This doesn't mean that I am more qualified for the job than someone with 5 years of experience; but surely I bring in different strengths (and weaknesses as well) from those guys. Shouldn't they check for those? After all, I was disappointed because my coding was only evaluated at a textbook level and I did not have an opportunity to demonstrate my real work through the years that I believe could be a contribution to them. For example, because the coding test during the phone interview was a breeze, I was expecting a more challenging one or an opportunity to brag about my work to them in person. Neither--I was given another set of easy coding questions. Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if I was hired. But I wasn't, so it makes me wonder what they were trying to achieve through this whole process.
The worst of everything--they do not give feedback on their decision, per company policy. To me, it's like an adding insult to injury. I would really like to know why I was not hired, so I could improve. I guess it's fair--it's their prerogative not to give me feedback. Then it's equally fair for me to dislike them and especially this guy whom I am sure I will have a chance to interact in the future.