Apart from the good points already made I think there's at least one more thing to consider: The quality of the (technical) interview process is directly correlated to the likelihood that your colleagues who went through a similar process will be at the top of their game.

Or otherwise said, do you feel that the "improvised [..] couple of lame questions" were sufficient for the two interviewers to get a good grasp of your personal skill in the area you're applying for or not? Because if not this to there's a good chance that some of your colleagues managed to get through the simple interview while a more thorough process would've shown their weaknesses or limitations.

Apart from the good points already made I think there's at least one more thing to consider: The quality of the (technical) interview process is directly correlated to the likelihood that your colleagues who went through a similar process will be at the top of their game.

Or otherwise said, do you feel that the "improvised [..] couple of lame questions" were sufficient for the two interviewers to get a good grasp of your personal skill in the area you're applying for or not? Because if not, there's a good chance that some of your colleagues managed to get through the simple interview while a more thorough process would've shown their weaknesses or limitations.