There's a big difference between interviewing for a job you're not interested in, but with an open mind, versus interviewing for a job where under no circumstances will you accept the role.

I struggle with this distinction. Almost any role I'd be willing to take for enough money. If you're upfront about those expectations I believe it's fine to take _any_ interview.

I mean, he could always quit Fronk and take the job at the marketing target.

I don't think the difference is as big as you seem to think. Everyone has a price. :)

Something not mentioned in the article is how willing 'Fronk' was to match and exceed every interviewer's offer. Get offers from FAANG enough times and Fronk would be paying quite nicely to stay competitive. It's not only unethical but stupid to commit to turning down a better offer than the one you currently have.

Yet you could get convinced, which in my eyes makes what you do honest.

You and a few others have said the same, but I don’t see the honesty angle. Window-shopping is not the same as entering a grocery store to buy milk. The intent is different in both cases regardless of the outcome.

I condone the behaviour nor think it’s unethical. Talent should be able to shop the market, just as companies shop the market for talent.

Edit: Whoops! Grammar

Yes - there are plenty of reasons to interview for a job you may not take. It’s crucial to have multiple offers when negotiating, practice interviewing, understanding the range of cultures, etc.

I think it’s quite reasonable to interview somewhere if there’s a 10% chance or greater that you’d work there, which is hard to know before they’ve convinced you throughout the process.

Honestly, I really don't know if I want to work for a company after meeting a few people there.

I guess I should say that I prefer to work for small < 20 person companies. Usually in the interview process I meet enough to get a good idea.