Pros: Growing stock value. Some good engineers (though some being pushed out due to conflict). Energetic CEO. Mission is okay but reducing in motivating value for staff as the business attempts to expand into tangential areas. Occasional paths to tech innovation.

Cons: Recent hiring has been poor. Reluctant to and/or incapable of removing poor performers. Bad project bets are cut off too late into the game. Little understanding of the long tail nature of engineer productivity/value and how that should affect hiring, compensation, and project allocation. Too many "yes men" and intolerance of conflicting opinions. Currently no road to IPO; stock liquidity options only for early employees. Lack of transparency, especially on HR/compensation issues.

Pros: The pay was decent. There was a $750 budget for the remote office setup. The benefits were so-so.

Cons: Major disconnect between C-suite and mid-level management, continuing downward to software engineering team. Both device firmware and cloud backend teams consistently deliver under-tested, buggy software which create continuous dumpster fires. Hero culture: Team member value depends upon who can grab the most high-visibility bugs to fix. Engineers compete for top hero spot. Will backstab to get out of responsibility for bugs, failures, crappy architectural decisions, etc. Not a lot of depth to the backend team, so architecture is crappy. Actual development tickets get less attention than the dumpster-fire-of-the-day issues. Endless weekly architecture/bug discussions, rehashing the same stuff from week to week. Not much actually happens, unless it's to address one of the weekly dumpster fires.

Pros: The company has incredible culture, technical problems, and leadership.

Cons: They're a startup - gotta keep moving!