Follow up to Microsoft's Sacred Cow

My story about Microsoft in the Seattle Weekly received a surprising number of responses. Slashdot’s link to the article last Thursday helped generate more than 175,000 page views proving again that no news is local news. I decided to post a follow up to the article given the number of letters and comments I’ve received from people over the past week. Please feel free to post your comments below.

Thoughts about Microsoft

Some people from Microsoft complained that I didn’t talk more about the products they are working on e.g. Longhorn, Tablet PC, Xbox2, Smart Phones, etc. I did ask Microsoft PR to let me talk to people with Longhorn and the other product groups but they ultimately declined. I know that people at Microsoft are excited about Longhorn. But while they say it will ship in 2006, we can’t be certain it won’t slip until 2007. In the end, Longhorn just didn’t seem as relevant to the story as its absence. OS X will be improved in 2006 too. So will Linux.

As for other product groups, I just didn’t see meaningful revenue growth from new product areas over the next few years that might affect my main thesis (Microsoft’s addiction to the Windows/Office revenue has slowed innovation). Business Week’s recent article estimated less than one billion in incremental revenue per year from new products through 2007.

Some people lauded Microsoft for giving away its service packs. While I agree this is a pro-customer business practice, the upcoming XP service pack is broader and deeper than past service packs. From what I’ve heard, it’s a major security improvement for novice users. It’s great that Microsoft will release it for free. I just think the extra focus on XP SP2 has cost Microsoft valuable time on future releases including Longhorn. The resulting Longhorn delay is the key issue to Microsoft’s competitiveness, not the cost of the service pack.

I think Microsoft people sometimes have a better experience with their own products than consumers do. Microsoft’s own state of the art managed corporate network and desktops provide a better experience for its employees than customers out in the real world. Some employees have told me they reboot only once a month. I remember having a similar experience with Windows 95 when I worked there. But it’s not generally like that for consumers. E.g. Outlook with Exchange Server may be great, but it’s not so great with IMAP. I think there still is a disconnect between Microsoft’s own sense of the quality of their products and their actual quality.

Some people raised the point that it’s easier for Apple to build a stable operating system because it only has to work on one hardware platform (their own), whereas Microsoft has to build software for numerous third party hardware platforms. I agree this point has merit. If the story had been solely about Windows reliability issues, I would have focused more on this. Still, Apple does seem to do a better job of isolating application problems from operating system stability than I see in Windows.

I’m a customer

I think Microsoft would benefit by thinking of me as a long time customer who after evaluating what they could offer – chose a competitor and had a great experience that I wanted to share. While I don’t expect to get letters of praise from Microsofties for my article, it did surprise me to receive only one email acknowledging that the article raised issues that could help them improve their products. [Late correction: After posting this, I did find an email from the Outlook group wanting to find out more about the problems I'd been having - kudos and thanks!]

It made me think about the old United Airlines commercial where a small business owner gets fired by an old friend/loyal client and buys airline tickets to fly his employees out to get reacquainted with all of their customers. At the end of the commercial, the employees ask the boss where he’s going, “to visit that old friend,” he says.

I can understand why the article would upset people at Microsoft and why some readers might feel that I have an axe to grind. I remember what it was like to work there – it’s a heady, intense environment filled with dedicated intelligent people. I know what the kool aid tastes like. One reader said that no Windows loyalist was going to get what I was saying until they tried OS X. I think this is true. I think Microsoft employees would benefit by immersing themselves more in the open source community and exploring the kinds of projects and products that are out there.

Microsoft product groups get to download and use all Microsoft software for free. While this is great for product testing and internal feedback, it can create tunnel vision. I have to wonder if groups were charged budget line items for software whether they would make the same purchasing decisions. e.g. would managers of programmers let them all have Microsoft Office ($$$) or insist they get by with OpenOffice (free)?

The Mac & Linux Echo Chamber

My article clearly touched a nerve for Mac and Linux loyalists. But it sort of seemed like an echo chamber of our own making. I don’t think this serves us or the industry very well.

I think the challenge for open source is to move beyond imitation to setting the lead for the industry. I think building Internet services into applications is one area where the open source community can lead now…and I see some early examples of it. But a lot more needs to be done. I will probably blog more on this in the future.

I think the open source community must also deal with the challenges that corporate participation creates. Is it enough for Apple to build some OS X components in open source but not others?

One of my sources said he thought the current stagnation with Windows has allowed a period of successful imitation by open source but that over time momentum would swing back to proprietary solutions as corporations became more involved.

Microsoft’s ambiguous position with regard to Mono is a related point. Microsoft spokesperson Jim Desler told me that the Sun settlement illustrated that Microsoft was trying to listen to its customers who want more interoperability. But he declined to comment on whether Microsoft would challenge Mono with its .NET patents.

Is there room for the open source model to evolve? The source I mentioned earlier thought open source might better compete with Microsoft if there was a way to compensate developers for their contributions. Perhaps the recent requirement of code signing in Linux may lead to some sort of new hybrid development model.

My Windows and Office complaints

Many readers confused me with Paul Andrews whom I quoted regarding his use of Windows 98 on his PC (Paul also has a Mac and a Linux box). My own comparisons were based on Windows XP vs. Mac OS X.

Some people questioned the merits of my article given that I couldn’t fix some of the problems with Windows that I’d mentioned on my own. E.g. bulleting of every line in Word documents. It’s not that I can’t fix my own problems, it’s just that I finally got tired of having to. My experience with Windows got to the point where looking up another knowledge base article just wasn’t worth working around it – and eventually abandoning the platform.

Thanks to Mike Alexander from Microsoft who posted this link for fixing the problem with Word bullets (many readers misunderstood the problem which they thought was more simple). For the record, I did get Internet Explorer working again by uninstalling it, rebooting and reinstalling it. Since I’ve been on OS X, I don’t have these kinds of problems – and I’m more productive and happier.

I scanned my troublesome Windows PC at work. There is no Spyware on it, no Kazaa, etc.

Furthermore, I was surprised at the lack of imagination by Outlook users who wrote that the latest 2003 release works better with Exchange server. What about automated address book synchronization e.g. Plaxo? What about Internet calendar sharing (this is not a solution)? What about automated spam white listing e.g. SpamArrest? What about a more search-oriented user interface that eliminates folder management e.g. Gmail?

Outlook is where most users spend most of their time – I just expected Microsoft to do more with it. I thought this reader made a good point that reflects the lack of innovation in corporate-focused Office 2003:

“They’ve [Microsoft] moved power from the desktop to the corporate IT departments. This is a self-reinforcing complexity mechanism. IT departments have themselves grown rich and fat on the massive amounts of resources required to maintain Windows corporate environments. This is one reason why the Redmond cash cow continues, because Microsoft serves its primary customer—not the end user, but the CIO who buys on behalf of the end user.”

It’s not clear to me how good ideas make it out of the product groups at Microsoft. Google seems to encourage and tolerate a certain level of experimental chaos. Most Microsoft people I’ve spoken to agree that employees who may suggest a new product or a new approach are more likely to be asked to focus on their own assignments than to be invited to discuss the idea with their manager’s manager.

Final Thoughts

Headlines are important. While the Slashdot link read, “A Former Microsoftie Forecasts Microsoft Doom”, I think the article made it clear that Microsoft’s cash reserves would help sustain it for many years. Though I think one reader said it well:

“In his lust to dominate the browser market and bring down Netscape, Bill and his cronies decided to give Internet Explorer away for free. They succeeded in undermining Netscape and getting the lion’s share of the browser market, but in the process they got an entire generation of users hooked on getting stuff for free. Once users get a taste of free, getting them to pay for stuff becomes difficult or impossible. Why pay for a browser when I can get it for free? Why pay for an operating system when I can get it for free? Why pay for software when I can get it for free? Why pay for music when I can get it for free? Why pay for movies when I can get them for free? In the end, it isn’t just Microsoft that’s hurt by this.”

For the record, I am very grateful for my time at Microsoft and the people that I worked with. I continue to use some Microsoft products. With my Mac G5, I use a Microsoft Wireless Natural Keyboard and Trackball Explorer mouse (both great products). I am, for the moment, trying out Mac Office 2004. At Groundspring, I'm currently using Visio on Windows. And, I am very aware of how fortunate I was to be there as the company grew and to share in its financial success. Without this, I would not have been able to start ActionStudio – and would not have my job with Groundspring.

That said, Microsoft needs to focus more on building better products for consumers. As one reader wrote:

“Unconditional loyalty is more appropriately exercised with friends and families rather than with corporations. Not only would the world be a better place, but we’d be getting better products.”

I know how hard building software and services is. We’ve had a lot of challenges with our own Groundspring products. Yet, Microsoft has vast resources and should be doing better than they are.

Thanks again to everyone for sharing your comments. And, thanks to the Microsoft folks who posted ideas to help me solve the problems I’d been having.

Comments

[Jon Stahl]

Great, thoughtful followup, Jeff.

[Matt Rosoff]

Hey, Jeff,

I've already communicated with you directly about your article--for everybody else, I agree with much of it, disagree with some, and thought it left a lot of things out (but what can you do in a single article?).

But to escape the echo chamber (there's a lot of braindead anti-MS spew out there, as evidenced by some of the letters the Weekly published), let me point you and readers of this blog to some things I think Microsoft is doing very well:

1. Xbox Live. Unified sign-in for all games, good matchmaking features, voice communiation in every game, reasonable lack of lag time, soon available for the PC. Not perfect--I ran into sign-up glitches--but an order of magnitude better than the online gaming experience on a PS2.
2. ASP.NET, Microsoft's latest technology for developing Web applications, has almost singlehandedly given the .NET platform a place in the market.
3. Windows security revamp. OK, if Microsoft hadn't dug itself a security hole in the first place, it wouldn't have needed to dig itself out. (For what it's worth, Linux and OS X are not somehow inherently more secure--there are exploitable bugs in all OSs--although some of those buffer overflows in Windows look awfully glaring from the outside.) At any rate, I give Microsoft credit for shutting down production on their most lucrative and important product--Windows--for several months to go back and plug security holes. Windows XP SP 2 is the latest outgrowth of this, but it's not the last. This is why Longhorn's late, and I think it's a worthy reason.
4. Mappoint.com (MSN's mapping site). So much better than Mapquest, you will never go back. Completely ignored by Microsoft's marketing machine, and damned if I can figure out why.
5. Hotmail's anti-spam initiative. They started it last winter. Since then, the amount of spam in my spamcatcher account (you know, the free e-mail address I put up everywhere) has dropped by 90%.
6. Word 2000. I haven't found anything better for intensive writing and editing. (Unfortunately, this also applies to Microsoft's own follow-ups).
7. OneNote. Introduced in late 2003, this is Microsoft's application for taking notes, and does all sorts of interesting grokky stuff, like letting you record audio notes than synchronizing them with the text/handwritten notes you take. Best on a Tablet PC, but reasonable if you're a writer/reporter and taking lots of notes on a laptop, or even phone conversation. One of those apps you have to see to understand--really pretty cool stuff.
8. SharePoint--a pair of products that basically let employees at companies create public forums and internal Web portals. There are more functional portal applications out there, there are simpler blogging applications out there, but for a combination of functionality and ease of use for end users, Microsoft has done a pretty nice job here.
9. Windows Messenger. Added many types of real time communication, including audio, video, whiteboard sharing, and application sharing, to the IM client built into Windows. They were also forward looking enough to base it on SIP, a protocol will eventually pave the way for presence detection across tons of devices (like phones) and applications (like business apps). This is a complicated and emerging area, and Microsoft hasn't quite got the server side in place yet, but in a few years, I can see real-time messaging over IP taking the place of e-mail, and Windows Messenger and SIP are the early point of the spear. (IBM's on board here as well, and there's an open source initiative called Jabber that must be mentioned as well.)
10. Legal. They're settling lawsuits left and right. They've paid several billion dollars to do so. (OK, they have 58 billion in the bank, but if you had 58 grand in your life savings and had to pay 10 grand out to settle lawsuits, you'd probably try to avoid it.) They definitely could have fought Sun or AOL to a standstill, but didn't. You can't underestimate how big of a change this is for a company that once fought the U.S. government to the point of a breakup.

[Ken Curtis]

About automated spam white listing...

If I get your gist, the new *free* Exchange 2003 "Intelligent Message Filter" add-on does this. It works with newer Outlooks, but if you don't have them -- can't afford to upgrade - using the OWA client has the option of personal white listing. You just open a message, right click the sender's email, and you can pick "Add Sender to Save Senders List" or "Add Sender to Blocked Senders List".

I just got this going last week, and it is a great free productivity-enhancer for my network (3000+ computers, PC/LAN support staff of 2 - yay public school funding). It is based on the same technology they use for hotmail spam blocking/learning.

As for the rest of your article, I can agree with a lot of it. And your reply is quite insightful. But I thought you'd appreciate this info.

[joeldg]

On linux.
Linux is growing and if you have not messed around with it for a while, you may want to take another look.
It takes less time to install than windows (i.e not a jillion service packs to install) and has no problems with any hardward I have found and I have everything from webcams to digital cameras to the latest laser printer.
The real issue is that programmers are migrating to linux in hordes to get away from limitations and unstability in windows. There is nothing worse than having to reinstall a fresh box and then all your apps because of some outlook trojan or spyware that takes over your entire machine, and especially when you are trying to write a program and are on a deadline.
When you have the talented programmers (who are the ones making all the software) all heading to a platform then you start to see the users heading that way so they can use the new programs, especially when you can use your old programs still or have easy to use converters.
The fact that windows is bloated and just getting worse is adding to the exodus away from them.

[Bob]

Hate to burst your bubble there Jon but there are some major problems with some of your statements. I'm going to break them down for you one by one.

1.X-Box - Um... I'm sorry. I have a computer. Why do I need an X-Box? Can I upgrade my X-Box, put in a better graphics card or more memory? Can I MOD the games without a SDK? Hmmm... we had these when I was a Kid... we called them Ataris.

2. ASP.NET - Hmmm... write code for one platform that will never be able to be used elsewhere? Fantastic! Where do I sign up? ASP.NET is supposed to be Microsofts server side scripting language/environment/framework/whatever for the web right? Well it can be used for other stuff but thats ASP.NET's main purpose. Wel surprise, surprise, surprise... guess who owns 70% of the web server market. It ain't Microsoft and ASP.NET isn't going to work with it. Kind of makes it a dumb choice for any serious web developer. But I hear C# is great for desktops... as long as you have a monopoly in them.

3. No comment.

4. Hotmails anti-spam effort??? HA! 70% of zombie spam machines are Windows machines! For al the effort Microsoft makes in Hotmail, it's still the biggest spammer in the world!!

5. Onenote? I've got textpad and voice recognition software. Both are free. Nuff said.

6. Sharepoint - Oooooh. A blog. Who do I give my money too?

7. Messenger - Um... how is this revolutionary again? Copy a product that copys a product that copies a product. I can still get the same thing for free.

Propoghandi... I still don't see how these things are better. Hell, even your vendors use open source products in their IT depts.

[Ken Curtis]

sorry for the spam - meant "Add Sender to Safe Senders List", not save sender. Oops.

[Leo Meyerovich]

I'm one of the archetypes listed (young'n). I've started to fall in love with Mac's at my radio station - given our intense production cycle, Window's would be programming suicide. However, outside of the prod studio, we use Windows XP for communication and basic file manipulation. At home, I prefer to do front-end design in Win2k. .NET is killer because it is drag and drop web programming - java may have a higher potential, but when working on short term or highly modular projects, .NET is more time efficient (at least compared to the java environments, including basic shell scripting, that I have used).

At my other summer job, back in the labs here, all of us are doing our summer research on linux machines. And in the evenings at home (or sometimes on our couches in the building) - remotely logged in from a wireless OS X laptop.

So there it is - a real-world product (as opposed to more software and information services) production environment, a personal environment, and a software development environment.

I like parts of each system [VS developing environment.. a lot of it doesn't feel like programming anymore], yet cannot safely say any is superior as each has critical setbacks.

post note: the above disappointment will not preclude me from hoping for an internship at ms/google/mac next summer :)

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I remember working with you at MS. From the moment you joined Windows, you were pushing these opinions, including the superiority of the Mac. Adopting the "I once was lost but now I'm found" attitude is disingenuous. Many of your criticisms are sound, as they were when we worked together, but you mislead readers by implying that you had some great turnaround when you left MS. You were a Mac evangelist from the moment you arrived in the heart of the Windows team.

[Thomas Roach]

In response to Leo;
.Net is NOT a killer app. It creates html code that is NOT W3C compliant and will not display correctly on any non-MS browser, including PDA's, Cell Phones, and Web TV (not just Linux or Mac.) I don't think being able to slop out a web page faster is any use to me if over 15% of my target market can't view the page.

VS is a great way to slop out a quick program, as long as you don't mind the bugs, bloated code, and platform dependance that comes with it.

As you get older, you'll realize that Quick (but sloppy) is not a good work ethic. Shortcuts are CUTS. They reduce funcionality and usability, and will have a negative impact on the bottom line of any company you work for.

[Lisa H.]

I can pinpoint the precise month that Reifman became a Mac lover: March 2004. Before that, he mocked Macs like all the rest of the Microsoft acolytes, and was unable to offer tech support to Mac friends such as myself. He *still* can't use OS 9.

[Tim]

I was really hoping you would clarify some of the misleading and/or false claims you made about open source in your original article. You stated that open source requires that future contributors also open the code for their modifications. But this is hardly true.

There are many licenses that don't require derivative products to provide source code, include the BSD license (used by the BSD operating system Apple based OSX on) that all one to do almost anything with the code without distributing changes.

Further, I think you gave far more credit to Apple than they deserve in this regard by making it appear that they were in fact giving back changes they had made to the source they used to build OSX. Which in the vast majority of their open source uses they have not.

Additionally, even Microsoft has used open source code from external sources. Most notably (and more importantly, provable) their use of the BSD TCP/IP stack.

And Bob, 3) Windows IS a less secure system from a design standpoint and is far less secure as implemented and maintained than Linux. You should have had a comment on this one.

[Jeff Reifman]

Response to anonymous: Are you sure you're not confusing me with Steve Capps and Walter Smith?

[Jeff Reifman]

Tim,

Thanks for your post. As more corporations rush to support the open source movement, more and more open source product development is being subsidized by these same corporations...and their motives are as much profits as any other. This was a topic I had hoped to address but ultimately didn't have room for it in the original article (and people still complained it read long).

You're right about BSD not requiring redistribution of source. But as far as I can tell, for now, Apple is redistributing the source of the open source components it's using: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

Still, Apple has not opened their entire platform. And, for example, Apple has made some unfriendly changes to iTunes as far as the open source community is concerned. Sun's recent decision to open source Solaris is interesting in relation to OS X.

I'm not a licensing expert but here are a few links people may be interested in:

http://www.openfoundry.org/en/archives/OSI%20License%20table.pdf

http://openacs.org/about/licensing/open-source-licensing

http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html

http://openacs.org/about/licensing/open-source-licensing

I agree with your point re OS X security. Kellan commented today that OS X is more secure technically and culturally.

Take care,
Jeff

[dennis]

"I think the challenge for open source is to move beyond imitation to setting the lead for the industry. "

I think this is a common misconception about any OS/application that is not based on Microsoft. I won't go into a diatribe about how many of thier products and technologies were, um, acquired. But a lot of them certainly did not orginate from them.

Non-Microsoft OSes have a much longer history than Microsoft. When dealing with computers (no matter the OS) there are many of the same things an administrator and user would want to do. As such applications are written to accomplish those tasks.

I do not consider that to be imitation. If anyone is or has it would be Microsoft.

[John]

i used to work at msft too (94-99, windows team) and agree 100% with ya... loved my time there, but a lot of tunnel vision there... quite a few ppl use linux/bsd/etc but managers and long-timers (vest-in-peace :) cant think outside the Office/Windows box.

but hey, i thought msft would see falling revenues 4 years ago, hasn't happened yet!

[Rene Kita]

Your knowledge of the Linux development model seems to derive from the infinite ignorance of AdTI's Ken Brown.

A) There is no "hybrid development model". Only Ken Brown uses that term, for polemical purposes, apparently. Linux is traceably 100% free software. The source is there for all to check. If proprietary code were to be found in GPL'd software, it would be immediately removed because of licensing conflicts. It is rather more difficult to trace stolen code in proprietary software.

B) The new code signing method for Linux kernel code is merely aimed at improving searchability. Every Linux source file has always carried a copyright notice that identifies its author(s) and the mailing lists and changelogs kept since day 1 provide traceabilty of every single change to Linux.

C) Most leading GNU/Linux OS and user software developers already get paid for their work by their various employers at RedHat, SUSE, IBM, OSDL, SGI, MandrakeLinux, Sun, etc. Those who work on the kernel or OS components in their spare time don't seem to have motivation problems, either, judging by the headlong gallop of improvements in all sectors.

[Jack Strangio]

>I just think the extra focus on XP SP2 has cost Microsoft valuable time on future releases including Longhorn.

This is an example of where the open source methodology is better than the proprietary model. Any proprietary company has limited resources, therefore to put more emphasis on one area necessarily reduces emphasis elsewhere.

Microsoft has limited resources. They can not compete with the hundreds of thousands of open source programmers, and it is beginning to show.

> I think the challenge for open source is to move beyond imitation to setting the lead for the industry.

Don't look now but this is already starting to occur, for example look at 'oggvorbis' or 'flac' in place of 'mp3' audio files, or 'png' image files instead of 'jpeg' or 'gif' files.

regards,

Jack Strangio

[C. Jaeger]

One thing to keep in mind. While Windows has to cope with a variety of hardware, Linux copes with a much greater variety. Linux runs on PCs, supercomputers and various platforms that Windows doesn't even touch.

[Daniel]

here's my 2c
this story about ms starting to loose cash is nothing new! in late 70's and early 80's was exactly the same! same about mid 80's, same about mid 90's and why not, same now...
simply put, bill rocks (he's an excellent business man, surounded by smart folks [read: smart people like to work with smart people])
these qualities will keep ms alive not 4 the next 10, but 4 the next 100 years!
on the other hand, linux never claimed to be more than "yet another unix". i cannot understand how could one be so blind... where is innovation coming from??? what was there first??? office or openoffice... u tell me! linux keeps cloning whatever's already there (e.g. initially minix kernel + ibm unix contributions (now called linux as in linus) kernel (do we have a windows kernel called billy?!? see, not really!), norton commander (symantec) - now called midnight commander (an ex dos product), kde (definitely inspired by windows 9x UI), mono (directly inspired by .net // what am i saying, quite theft!) then amsn (msn messenger client) and many many other!!!

so, where is innovation coming from?!? everywhere... like cheap clones of existing functionality for the sake of promoting an official dumping policy (called open source) or in redmond...

u tell me!

all the opinions expressed here are personal, i do *NOT* work for ms.

good coding everyone,
daniel

[C. Jaeger]

Re: Daniel's post.

I'm sorry, but playing the "Innovation" card isn't a good way to defend MS or attack Linux. VERY few MS products were "inovated" by MS. Nearly all of them are built on copying competitors or buying/licensing from other companies.

MS-DOS (initially CP/M), Windows (inspired by X-Windowing environment on UNIX), Win98/XP (inspired by Apple's Mac), msn messenger (inspired by Yahoo messenger) see what I'm saying.. quite theft. Internet Explorer ("Based on NCSA Mosaic" - Read this in the "About Internet Explorer" dialog, btw.) Visual FoxPro (purchased as FoxPro for Windows from Fox Software), Excel (based on Lotus 1-2-3.)

Many of MS's products came from other companies actually. So where is the inovation in that?

So, either you can conclude that neither MS or Linux inovate, or that they both build on other's concepts.

Then again, Linux is the first OS to run on everything from embedded devices to mainframes... so that seems a little inovative to me.

Disclaimer: I do *NOT* work for Linus Torvolds.

[Jeff Wilkinson]

You mention liking *some* MS products such as Visio.
FWIW, Visio was a great product *before* Microsoft got their hands on it, so they shouldn't get credit for that one.

Many other MS products were bought, not created there from scratch. (including the first MSIE) That isn't to say they should only sell invented-here products, just that some of the innovation they are credited with isn't really their work or thinking.

Frankly, IMO, MS buys good products, then overloads them with feature bloat and MS Office tie-ins until they are ruined within a few release cycles. That's why the visio fans I know all mourned the day we heard MS bought it. Seriously.

[C. Jaeger]

re: Jeff Wilkinson

I used to be a FoxPro developer and all of the developers I knew mourned the day we learned that MS was buying it.

As predicted, they tried changing licensing terms, then made a lot of unpopular changes. In the end, they have alienated their core developers so much that many are moving to Linux and open source options.. including some of their key supporters and resources in the past. (See this article by FoxPro great Whil Hentzen about moving to Open Source... http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/05/28/1936211.shtml?tid=132&tid=2&tid=82&tid=94 )