Is it important to include every company’s initial? The purpose is to convey the idea of companies that have extremely good cash flow, and can compensate extremely well with equity due to consistent long term growth.
It’s obvious MS and any other company that compensates similarly is included when stating “FAANG”, but throwing an M or other letter in there is going to make it harder to roll off the tongue.
That is a good point, I guess I'm just used to seeing it in discussions where the context is distinguishing companies with high pay and valuable RSUs versus others.
> It’s obvious MS and any other company that compensates similarly is included when stating “FAANG”
Doesn't MS pay substantially less though? My peers at MS make way less than my peers at Google, Facebook, and the others in FAANG. The only one that kinda sorta underpays is Amazon, but if you consider the stock appreciation they sometimes did better.
Yes, but I figured MS compensation is more similar to other FAANG companies than non FAANG companies for the purposes of someone looking for a higher paying job.
I remember a scant five or so years ago the term that was used was "Big 4", referring to Google, Facebook, Amazon, and one one of either Twitter, Microsoft, or Apple.
Now Apple is firmly a member of the club, Twitter seems completely rejected, Microsoft sort of a second tier citizen, and Netflix has joined out of left field.
i prefer MANGA for the list of desirable bigcos to work. Don't know anyone who wants to work at FB (that isnt currently there) and its a much better acronym.
It seems like this is US only, I initially thought the search functionality was broken when it showed no jobs in London (UK).
Is there a technical limitation as to why this has been kept US centric, if so this should be reflected in the website heading to prevent confusion and wasted time.
I don't know if this will be particularly useful. The problem with job applications is that they're flooded with crap so there's a noise issue. The way to cut through that noise is to understand that you need to extend your candidacy via someone inside the organization who has a vested interest in moving you forward.
That person is a referrer and/or a recruiter. Without either of those two participating in some way shape or form in this kind of an idea, I'm afraid it isn't going to be terribly useful for candidates.
My startup offers better benefits than any of those, and better salary, with the caveat that we're pre IPO/exit/whatever so you can't turn around and sell the vested stock immediately like you can at those companies.
Point is: not all startups have non comparable benefits.
Not a fan of the acronym at all, its been misused a lot. However, if there's a website out there that allows me to apply do multiple job listings in one click that'd be awesome. Imaging having to go through a variety of ATS like workday. Not to mention, often times, the info within the same company isn't reused. I'd be sold if all of that was taken care of with a single click.
Providing your email will subscribe you to a newsletter that will send you (remote) FAANG job listings.
The upvote/downvote is not entirely wired up at the moment, but the intention is to eventually sort listings similar to that of most content aggregators - by relevance - as opposed to just sorting by date desc.
What is your business proposition to lure me from the other myriads of job sites?
Ultimately, what is your business product? Fro example, Google's & Facebook's product is the user (and their behavior). For Netflix it is streaming videos, while Amazon is the products sold by them.
How did you get kicked off Blind? The standard for discourse there is uhh aggressive and inflammatory to put it lightly. Not to say there isn't value (there are tons of really intelligent and helpful people on the forum) but I wonder how far you have to go to get removed.
Apple is a weird outlier here. Do people consider working at Apple the same as working at a FANG? From my experience and talking with people in the field, it's not really the same league, neither in work-life balance, pay, benefits, etc.
how is it an outlier? it is absolutely competitive when it comes to pay. benefits and WLB are comparable to Amazon, e.g. no free food (except for the infamous amazon bananas).
you could make the argument that neither of them belong on the list, but I would disagree with that too
i would look at these things when deciding which companies should be on the list:
is TC for the position (on average) in the top 5%?
is the company considered to be a potential terminal/apex in one's tech career? as in you could work there until retirement (potentially an early one if you are making enough money)
for the employees who don't stay forever, do they typically go between other employers in the set when switching jobs? (google <-> fb is the main example i think about for this)
i want to include perceived prestige on this list too, but that seems way too difficult and subjective when it comes to quantifying it. one measurement would be how appealing your experience at a member of the set would make you to the rest of the industry as a candidate.
It’s a shame because Apple has some of the more interesting faang jobs I’ve seen (personal opinion ofc) but I just continuously see negative things about it from relatively poor pay, to forcing people to give up their side projects to requiring cult like obsession with the company.
