Started with a phone screen, followed by a basic background check, then a technical phone interview, and finally an on-site interview.
I appreciated how prompt they were with responses.
On-site:
It seemed like half of the interviewers didn't know what they were talking about; it felt scripted. When you tried an approach different from what they had seemingly pre-planned, they acted bewildered. Halfway through, they would ask why you didn't do it their way. Whenever a question popped up about the future of the company, none of them were able to give a non-generic answer. Beware, one of the bosses showed me how he keeps track of all his employees through their app. The company did not portray any promising vision of the future.
Don't waste time trying to explain how your approach is the same thing but a different way; just do it the way they want. The confusion on their faces when they try to follow your explanation of your approach is a waste of time.
Otherwise, the overall experience was better than average and went smoothly. We were just unable to convey and agree on ideas and methods. Some of these people seem to be hunkered down for the long haul, with not much motivation for innovation.
The following metrics were computed from 2 interview experiences for the Life360 Software Engineer role in San Francisco, California.
Life360's interview process for their Software Engineer roles in San Francisco, California is extremely selective, failing the vast majority of engineers.
Candidates reported having very good feelings for Life360's Software Engineer interview process in San Francisco, California.