Maybe in a big company, but actually I completely disagree with this in the context of a small startup. In that context, having a tight team of people who are highly passionate about the product is _essential_.

I think you can be highly passionate about solving complex problems without being highly passionate about the product

The only real complex problem a start-up has to solve is making the product successful. Engineers that love "complex problems" with no love for the product / space it's in is usually a recipe for disaster.

I think it's completely reasonable for a CEO to have a different view, and when you're a tiny startup, it's very fair.

You can be, but I wouldn't hire that person. Why would I want an engineer who doesn't give a shit about the actual product they're responsible for?

Using the product your company makes in the way it is intended to be used isn't "drinking the koolaid". If you aren't comfortable doing that then you really shouldn't be working there.

I mean... you don't HAVE to, you're right. However, hiring for most engineering roles is a filtering problem rather than a sourcing problem. I'd rather hire a Javascript engineer who'll at least _pretend_ to be excited about the job than hire a Javascript engineer who is lukewarm to cold right out of the gate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think the point is the CEO was aware of the old advice "make what you'd want to use", and just decided to roll with that advice in mind.

At an early stage startup it’s absolutely critical.

Did you mean to say the same thing two different ways?

> koolaide

In reference to the product, it is Kool-Aid.

Also, to be extra pedantic (why not), it should be Flavor Aid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Deaths_in_Jonestown

Is using a product once as an interview task really that unreasonable?

It's not like he was asking you to adopt Loom into your life or to drink the koolaide.