I've selected "no opinion" for the overall experience - but that's not accurate, it was a mix of positive and negative. Anyone applying to Bending Spoons needs to consider the amount of time their online tests will take - like others who've commented here, I spent over a day and a half responding to their online problems (8 unseen problems in total, seemingly straightforward but time-consuming), and when rejected only got the most basic feedback. Also, if you're recruiting experienced hires then the value of online testing is limited at best, other than for the most basic screening. The entire process was in English, IMO the problems were probably written by someone who was perfectly fluent but not a native speaker. The problems aren't generic ones everybody's seen countless times before - they're relevant to the role, and strongly focused on certain specific aspects of it (n.b. they don't cover product strategy or product management in general). I think they were almost certainly written in-house, and likely tested on existing staff - in particular I think it’s likely they were written by people familiar with the role being hired for, rather than with writing recruitment tests. Although the individual problems they use are generally very good - I’m not convinced they’re testing for what they think they’re testing for. As for the overall process... I was contacted by Bending Spoons on LinkedIn, and after an initial discussion they asked me to apply online. They sent a link to a website (that they host) containing the first set of problems to be responded to - there was no overall time limit (they said something along the lines of “…if you need more than 10 days…”), problems can taken in any sequence, individual problems had time limits of between 1 and 3 hours, before starting a problem the only thing you know is how long you have for that problem (and in one case that you’ll need to use Google Sheets). The first three problems had a total of 5 hours allowed. The feedback I got from this was quite positive “… Your tests were actually very good …”, “… not that many people arrive at the second batch, especially in this role, which is receiving many applications …”. The second batch comprised a further 5 problems taking 8 hours. I had a quick online interview with them on Google Hangouts - 45 minutes, very superficial, nothing tricky but it felt more like they were validating answers I’d already given and rounding-out my basic understanding of the company and role. A subsequent interview would presumably have gone into greater depth. The rejection was prompt (a message from HR a few days later, followed by a generic email the next week) and polite, but (even after prompting for feedback) rather superficial… “Your performance throughout this process has been very good. Unfortunately, when added up, we feel that some candidates reached a slightly higher level with the problem solutions and the interview. It’s just a matter of fierce competition …” and “The main problem was in the tests, especially in the ones about XYZ and XYZ. As I've said, your performance was very good, particularly regarding the interview, but we are keeping the bar very high due to the number of applications we are receiving for this role”. Okay, I was rejected, it happens, but… 8 problems, a total of about 13 hours excluding all the associated overhead of this sort of thing - essentially about 2 days full time responding to questions online, and I’ve no particular idea of what was wrong. Obviously you often get little or no feedback from job applications, and the hiring company is certainly under no obligation to provide any - but expecting such an investment of effort from applicants right at the start of the process and providing essentially no feedback in turn is, at best, discourteous. I’m not really sure what these problems are intended to test/validate. At face value it would appear to be - are you currently a product manager for XYZ type of mobile app that is monetised in XYZ way? But, from my CV I’m clearly not, and they could have qualified me out at any time with a single question. Again, I come back to thinking they were designed internally by somebody familiar with the job being hired for, rather than by someone in recruitment (and possibly then tested by someone else internal - XYZ is important for this job, you currently do this job, validate that this is a test of XYZ). I’ve a nagging feeling that Bending Spoons are looking at their recruitment process and thinking - we’ve put all this effort into creating problems relevant to the job we’re hiring for, we’ve had loads of applicants for the role, we’ve spent hours reading through 1000-word answers to each problem, why are so few people passing the tests?

After applying for the job, I received a first set of problems to solve, with a total time frame of 5 hours. The first questions were not too hard to solve, but definitely required the full 5 hours to give solid answers. Briefly after completing this set of questions, I was asked to do another set of problems, with a total working time of 6 hours. According to the email communication up to that point, this is required to gain an understanding, whether it makes sense to invite me to an interview and basically whether I could be Bending Spoons material. The second set of problems was significantly harder than the first one and, once again, requires the use of the whole available time. After completing the second set of problems, with a total working time of 11 hours, I received an email informing me of the decision to not invite me for an interview. No concrete reasons or any feedback whatsoever was given, except an empty phrase "that the competition was very tough". Bending Spoons is an attractive company and seems to be quite successful, but I'm sure there are more effective ways to filter out applicants. Asking for 11 hours of working time just to receive an impersonal email with no substantial feedback in the end feels rather disrespectful towards the applicants.