A Nuance on the Burning Platforms Memo - Nokia Board and Nokia Chairman Reprimanded Elop For That Mistake

I came across this interesting article in Finland's largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (published more than a month ago on 29 Sept 2013) about Elop's tenure while Nokia CEO (the article is in Finnish of course). It is mostly a biographical story of the departing Nokia CEO but it includes an interesting passage about the Burning Platforms memo, which may ring particular bells to our readers who were here in 2011 and lived throught its aftemath. Plus it sheds some light on the negotiations with Microsoft. So let me do my translation of that passage into English (I will include the Finnish part also at the end for those who know Finnish and might want to read it to compare)

Early on Elop experienced friction with the Board. He made decisions quickly and at his own initiative and did not always remember to inform the Board, which at this time was still led by past CEO, Jorma Ollila. Elop's adviser Stephen Miles confirms that during Elop's tenure at Nokia, he and Elop discussed a lot about how Elop might be better able to inform the Board, and get it to sign onto the proposals of his management.

Nokia Board members were particularly annoyed by for example the famous memo where he compared Nokia's situation to a man standing on a burning oil platform, who had to decide whether to jump into the freezing sea. The emotional memo was published internally in February 2011, a little before the Windows partnership was revealed to the world. The purpose of Elop's memo was to awaken the organization to the necessity of change. It ended up also condemning the company's Symbian phones, which Nokia had intended to sell for another 150 million units.

The leaking of the memo into the public domain did not make it easier for Nokia sales staff around the world. Many have estimated the memo to have been very expensive to Nokia, as Symbian phone sales became ever more difficult. At the Nokia Board, the memo was seen as a severe error in judgement, and Elop was given stinging feedback from Jorma Ollila. The cooperation with the Board would improve over time. In the Spring 2011 Shareholder Meeting appointed Elop as a Member of the Board.

With hindsight we know that the selection of Windows sealed in the end the sale of Nokia's handset business to Microsoft. After a couple of years, the Lumia phone sales did not meet expectations. and Nokia's worsening economic condition forced the Board to the painful decision.

The exact role of Elop in the sales process is not fully known. He did participate in the negotiations which included members of the Board, active management of Nokia, and outside advisors. Nokia Chairman of the Board, Risto Siilasmaa has emphasized, that he led the negotiations with Microsoft. The negotiations got to speed in February, when Siilasmaa and Ballmer met at the mobile industry fair in Barcelona. One is unlikely to ever know, what kind of bilateral talks Ballmer and Elop engaged in, if any.

So what is the news here. First, that the Board disapproved of the Burning Platfoms memo. No surprise there but nice to see it now reported in Finland's largest newspaper. Also that Jorma Ollila actually reprimanded Elop about it. Good to know. Now - that tidbit of recollection.. someone once wrote a few months after the Memo, that Elop must have been spanked recently, because he had already changed his mind on about a dozen mistakes in his memo.. Remember that? Now we know who did the spanking. It was big JO.

Also, no surprise from what we've seen of Elop's style, but yeah, he clearly was doing his thing without bothering to tell the Board and the Board had to chase him afterwards about what he had been up to... So even more proof that yes, the actual damaging decisions and especially those damaging communications (Memo, timing of Windows announcement, sudden MeeGo death announcement etc) came before Elop had 'remembered' to inform the Board. Why was he doing this? He had his cool bonus that he was working towards.. Nice to 'forget' to inform your boss, eh?

Lastly, we now know Elop was personally involved in the Microsoft sale - WOW what a conflict of interest and even Helsingin Sanomat speculates that Elop may have had private meetings on his regular trips to Redmond (because contrary to his original promise, he did not bring his family from Redmond to Finland.. the family was a convenient excuse to go meet up with his pal Ballmer, especially now that we learned that his marriage was so much a wreck, that the divorce proceedings were started already in 2012...)

For those who might be new to this story or this blog - the Burning Platfoms memo was indeed the costliest memo of all time and this was the first blogsite in the world to call it damaging to Nokia, at the time when we weren't even sure if it was written by Elop. The final count of the cost of the Memo is here. Meanwhile, on Elop - his time at Nokia was a disaster. His predecessor, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo was fired after four years. Elop didn't last three years. The Nokia disasterous corporate performance under Elop is discussed here. And the most bizarre twist to the story - that Elop was paid 25 million dollars for having destoyed the Nokia handset business - yes this is true and was confirmed by Nokia that it was in his contract - that story is here. The Financial Times has just compared this heist to the worst greed we've seen on Wall Street, and counted that in his bizarre bonus package, Nokia shareholders paid Elop one million Euros for every 1.5 Billion Euros of Nokia value that Elop destroyed during his 3 years. The damage Elop achieved at Nokia is the worst management-caused damage in Fortune 500 sized-company history, worse than New Coke was to Coca Cola, worse than Toyota had with its brakes problems, worse even than the BP oil spill was to BP. If you just want the numbers to do your own analysis. Pure numbers-only Elop history is here.

So yeah, I know we are pretty well done with Elop - not quite, I have to do the final numbers of course now that we have the last Nokia Quarterly Results under Elop, and I have something quite spectacular coming up shortly on this blog (will there be pictures?...) 

 

From Helsingin Sanomat, recreated the above translation, in original Finnis:

Alkuvaiheessa Elopilla oli kitkaa hallituksen kanssa. Hän teki päätöksiä vauhdikkaasti ja omin päin eikä aina muistanut informoida hallitusta, jota vielä tuolloin johti entinen toimitusjohtaja Jorma Ollila. Elopin neuvonantaja Stephen Miles vahvistaa, että Nokia-aikana hän ja Elop keskustelivat erityisen paljon siitä, miten Elop ottaisi paremmin huomioon hallituksen ja saisi sen sitoutumaan toimivan johdon esityksiin.

Nokian hallituksen jäseniä ärsytti esimerkiksi Elopin kirjoittama kuuluisa muistio, jossa hän vertasi Nokian tilannetta palavalla öljylautalla seisovaan mieheen, jonka on tehtävä päätös hyiseen mereen hyppäämisestä. Tunteikkaasti kirjoitettu muistio julkaistiin yhtiön sisällä helmikuussa 2011, hieman ennen kuin Windows-yhteistyö kerrottiin koko maailmalle. Elopin muistion tarkoituksena oli herättää organisaatio muutoksen välttämättömyyteen. Siinä sivussa hän tosin tuli haukkuneeksi yhtiön Symbian-puhelimet, joita Nokia oli ajatellut toimittaa maailmalle vielä 150 miljoonaa kappaletta.

Muistion vuotaminen julkisuuteen ei ainakaan helpottanut Nokian myyjien tilannetta maailmalla. Monet arvioivat sen tulleen Nokialle kalliiksi, sillä Symbian-puhelinten kauppaaminen muuttui entistä vaikeammaksi. Nokian hallituksessa muistiota pidettiin pahana arviointivirheenä, ja Elop sai siitä kitkerää palautetta Jorma Ollilalta. Yhteistyösuhde hallituksen kanssa parani sittemmin. Kevään 2011 yhtiökokous nimitti Elopin hallituksen jäseneksi.

Jälkikäteen tiedetään, että Windowsin valinta käyttöjärjestelmäksi sinetöi lopulta Nokian matkapuhelinten myynnin Microsoftille. Lumia-puhelinten myynti ei parin vuoden jälkeenkään vastannut toiveita, ja Nokian heikkenevä taloustilanne pakotti yhtiön hallituksen kipeään ratkaisuun.

Elopin täsmällinen rooli myyntiprosessissa ei ole täysin selvillä. Hän oli mukana neuvotteluryhmässä, johon kuului hallituksen jäseniä, Nokian toimivaa johtoa ja ulkopuolisia neuvonantajia. Nokian hallituksen puheenjohtaja Risto Siilasmaa on korostanut, että hän johti neuvotteluita Microsoftin kanssa. Neuvottelut pääsivät vauhtiin helmikuussa, kun Siilasmaa ja Ballmer tapasivat Barcelonan matkaviestintämessuilla. Sitä tuskin saadaan koskaan tietää, minkälaisia kahdenkeskisiä keskusteluita Ballmer ja Elop keskenään kävivät, jos kävivät.

 Full article at Helsingin Sanomat website here.

Comments

[Winter]

@Baron95
"And I don't think Microsoft and Nokia failed at all. This whole idea that Nokia and Microsoft would surpass Apple and Android is total fantasy."

Rewriting history again. Sorry, but we were there when it happened, and we remember.

Windows Phone will beat Android in 2013, analyst explains
http://bgr.com/2011/05/10/windows-phone-will-beat-android-in-2013-analyst-explains/

Windows Phone will pass iPhone by 2016, IDC says
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227806/Windows_Phone_will_pass_iPhone_by_2016_IDC_says

[digipix]

Hello there, I discovered your site by the usse of Google whilst searching for a siimilar matter, your web site got here up, it seems great. I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks. Hello there, simply become aware of your blog through Google, and located that it's truly informative. I am gonna be careful for brussels. I will appreciate in case you proceed tis iin future. Many other folks can be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

[Name]

@B a r o n 9 5 (the real Baron95?) wrote "What first world country had Nokia smartphone sales increasing at the time of the Memo - which would only impact orders for handsets to be sold in Q2/2011 and later?"

You tell me. I only said that it caused damage to operator relationships.

"Either way, the memo was probably the only way to get the multiple Nokia fiefdoms to pull in the same direction."

(I had to search for a copy of the text to remind myself what he said, and I found this recent article quite interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-elops-burning-platform-memo-2013-9)

The memo might have succeeded if the follow-on step hadn't been to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Why write a memo whose purpose is (presumably) to refocus and rally the company, then effectively make most of your audience redundant with the next announcement? What's strange is that he inadvertently identified some of the systemic problems with Nokia in his memo but, instead of addressing them, he just chose what seemed to be the easy option. Either it was an act of desperation to switch to Windows, or it had already been decided well in advance.

Elop wrote something on his internal blog not that long after about the Windows decision - the internal PR machine tends to kick in on occasions like these. The part that stuck in my mind was that he said the decision had been made many months before. You can argue about whether he meant switching away from Symbian/MeeGo or switching to Windows. Personally, I can't believe that Android was ever seriously considered - I think too many people in middle/upper management had axes to grind.

[solar panels]

On top, it looks like a pretty fundamental issue, with a solution that ought to be readily obtainable.

[E.Casais]

"Apple is spending more money on machine tools"

Yup, which reminds me that one of the most vocal commentator here berated Nokia and other device vendors for foolishly owning their means of manufacturing. My reply then http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/10/pinpointing-the-elop-effect-3-pictures-from-nokia-financial-data-all-agree-it-was-february-2011/comments/page/1/#comments was that Apple was itself buying the necessary production equipment and that direct capital (i.e. equipment, means of production) ownership instead of complete production outsourcing makes perfect economic sense and is a crucial advantage in industry. Hope that the reference you put nails down the message and close this specific argument.

[B a r o n 9 5]

Nokia did not own the means of manufacturing. They owned ridiculous plants. Including in Finland, Germany, Poland. That is totally ridiculous and uncompetitive. Apple invest in unique tooling that are control points and place them in factories operated by Hon Hai, Compal, etc.

There is a world of difference. Apple invests in control points. Nokia was investing in buildings and expensive, unproductive people on direct payroll for production. Buildings and expensive productions personnel are not control points. They are boat anchors that will sink any ship.

[B a r o n 9 5]

@Winter - Microsoft selling Windows Phones at a loss.

Even if true, so what?

Google produces Android at a loss and gives it away for free. They make Nexus phones at a loss. Is that bad?

Amazon loses money on every Kindle. Is that bad?

You are so clueless.

You think Amazon, Microsoft and Google's play in this space is to make a few bucks on a phone or tablet?

They are playing to control entire ecosystems of OS, Network SW, Applications, Cloud Services, Music, Video, Books, etc, etc, etc.

Did you miss that last quarter iTunes generated the same revenue for Apple as the Mac line? And it is growing at 80%+?

There may be in deed a point where devices are given away for free.

I'm so sorry for you and Tomi. You are fighting 1990s GSM battles while Apple, Google, Microsoft are fighting 2020 World Word III.

Laughable.

[E.Casais]

@Baron95

"Apple invest in unique tooling"

Yeah, because you think Nokia plants were empty? Nokia invested in entire plants -- equipment and "unique tooling" included.

"unproductive people on direct payroll for production"

Huh? Production personnel is by definition productive. It is all those "business developers" and vice-presidents and other overhead at HQ who are unproductive.

"expensive productions personnel are not control points"

On the contrary. The more the product is high-tech and uses advanced production tools and processes, the more qualified, ans yes, expensive, production personnel is a control point.

You obviously neither know, nor understand what you are talking about.

When it comes to Apple, the economics can be summarized as follows:

1) The objective is to extract as much value from the entire production chain.

2) Production facilities constitute a fixed investment. The more, and the longer you produce on them, the less the CAPEX weigh in the final cost -- your operating margin increases (but you really must be successful at selling masses of products -- which Nokia was, Samsung and Apple are, all of which own(ed) their production equipment).

3) If you outsource the production, the contractor is basically paid in proportion of units ordered. Hence, if the subcontractor owns the facilities, it also captures the increasing returns to capital due to growing production.

4) By owning the tools, Apple basically reduces the revenue of subcontractors to purely variable costs (i.e. labour, energy, materials) and a tiny profit margin. The profit accruing to decreasing CAPEX in the final unit costs is captured by Apple.

5) Apple can also determine exactly the equipment it wants to be used -- to cater for the way Apple products are designed (which often requires special materials, etc).

6) By not employing production personnel what Apple does not capture are increasing returns to labour productivity (deriving from learning curve). Apple does not seem to care much, as Foxconn & co mostly rely upon masses of low-productivity, low-paid, little trained factory workers. Hence not many competences to retain. If the production was more automated, things would look different. By the way, I suspect this arrangement is mostly for assembly and less high-tech components -- production of CPU for instance is probably a completely different matter.

The results regarding quality are telling: what I keep reading are low yields on the Apple-dedicated production lines. There was an article in BusinessWeek about Apple subcontractor Foxconn in Malaysia ("An iPhone Tester Caught in Apple's Supply Chain"). The factory that produces optical components for the iPhone was eventually closed, with 70% of components being rejected at QA. An incredibly low yield -- I got a confirmation from somebody with long experience in electronics manufacturing that such a rejection rate means your production process is completely out of control. Outsourcing production personnel on the cheap is not so productive after all...

[E.Casais]

"You think Amazon, Microsoft and Google's play in this space is to make a few bucks on a phone or tablet?"

On this very specific point, Baron95 is right. The game is multidimensional, and the players have several cards to play (MS: business services + games; Amazon: pay for content + cloud services; Google: ads mainly, but also some commercial cloud offerings).

[B a r o n 9 5]

@Ecasais On your Essay on Production

You are completely wrong on several points. Assembly labor for phones is a commodity - the more advanced the tooling, the more comoditized labor becomes. Factory buildings for phones are a commodity - unlike say a 777 plane assembly building or a semiconductor fab. There is little advantage for owning either.

Ownership of advanced tooling, that is unique and prevents contract manufacturers from using them to produce competitive products, on the other hand, are a huge control point. Apple, under Tim Cook (when he was running manufacturing, supply and operations) figured out the formula perfectly. To have control of production, without owning the commoditized portion of the production chain.

We have not (yet) experienced a smartphone severe downturn or price war. But, it is inevitable. When it comes it will be vey painful for companies like Samsung.

Apple can adjust orders to its contract manufacturers very quickly. Samsung will have to shutdown huge factories and layoff tens of thousands and face labor strikes, etc. It will be messy.

Just because you haven't seen a downturn yet, doesn't mean one is not coming. When it does. I want the companies I invest in to be able to turn off production quickly. You can keep all your buildings and people. I'll hold Apple stock, thank you.

[zlutor]

@B a r o n 9 5: "Nokia was investing in buildings and expensive, unproductive people on direct payroll for production." - well, you talk about Nokia factories without knowing anything from them...

I've seen with my own eyes them and I can tell you, they are _extremely_ effective stuffs. Maybe not _so_ effective as some factory megapolis - where all kind of component is manufactured in the 'nearby' factory - in China but still.

I know capitalism is not about social responsibility but latter one was one of company values of Nokia - and I see it absolute positive...

"Apple can adjust orders to its contract manufacturers very quickly. Samsung will have to shutdown huge factories and layoff tens of thousands and face labor strikes, etc."

Wow, what an ethic... The cool clever guy just 'adjust his contract' and done - no stupid workers to be sacked. At least not directly because those poor guys will be sacked by its contractor, anyway...

This mentality leads to the situation of e.g Detroit in your own home county, man!

[E.Casais]

@Baron95

"Assembly labor for phones is a commodity - the more advanced the tooling, the more comoditized labor becomes."

It would be nice if the equipment acquired by Apple were just for assembly lines manned by low-qualified personnel.

Unfortunately for your argument, this is not the case.

Did you care to read the article referred to by Leebase? The information is telling:

Special equipment for testing gyroscopes, for milling aluminium bodies, for laminating displays, for coating anti-reflecting surfaces, furnaces for sapphire production. High-tech, highly automated, relying upon robotics.

Commodity labour is not the issue. Not at all.

When you say

"unlike say a 777 plane assembly building or a semiconductor fab"

Precisely. Industrial buildings for electronics assembly are commoditized. I.e. relatively cheap. They will not sink the firm -- and, if not wackily oversized, they are fairly easy to disinvest. A semiconductor fab or an airplane hangar on the other hand...

I suggest you re-read carefully what I wrote, with a cool head. I did not state that Apple is stupid -- on the contrary. Apple, Samsung and Nokia procure components, subcontract some work, and own a large part of the production means. There are very strong, very well-established economic reasons to do this. Apple does it in an original way, but the underlying industrial logic is similar (keep margins accruing to CAPEX, avoid "leakage" of production capabilities to competitors, keep knowledge of product design, etc).

"When a severe smartphone downturn comes it will be vey painful for companies like Samsung."

And for Apple, whose expensive machinery will sit unused. This is the inevitable counterpart of investing in production capital.

[E.Casais]

@Leebase

"I think it displays the value of Apples massive cash position."

Yes, that is the major difference with other players. Apple can play the game of investing in new manufacturing processes and equipment to a much larger extent than other comparable players. But it is not the only one: companies like Intel do the same -- their business is predicated on being at the tip of the progress in manufacturing techniques and tools, into which they invest gigantic sums.

"Apple has to invent the manufacturing processes in time to manufacturer the phones"

Every major player does this to some extent, in every industrial segment, and at every level. I am still amazed when seeing SME inventing and building their own machinery to produce whatever they produce, because no tool manufacturer has what they need or supports the process for the production of their new products.

"Apple doesn't feel the need to own the commoditized portions of the manufacturing chain."

With exceptions, most firms feel the same.

"And what is cutting edge today becomes tomorrow's commodity."

Not necessarily, some cutting edge techniques are simply abandoned because something better comes rapidly to supplant them. But I see your point.

[B a r o n 9 5]

@Zlutor "I've seen with my own eyes them and I can tell you, they are _extremely_ effective stuffs."

Really? They are effective? You got that by looking at it? Wow!!!

What the unit production costs compared to the Hon Hail factory that builds the iPhone? How much does Nokia have to pay to fire a low performing employee? If Nokia needs to increase production and hire 50,000 workers in a month can they do it?

You have no clue what you are talking about. Hon Hai can increase/decrease workforce by tens of thousands virtually at will. Low performing people don't last even a day there. The level of productivity/competition on a Hon Hai factory vs the one in Finland is not even on the same plane. That is why the Finnish factory closed and Hon Hai is expanding.

You are just being emotional.

[B a r o n 9 5]

@Ecasais "And for Apple, whose expensive machinery will sit unused."

Nope. They'll be used less or re-purposed. Either way they'll be financially depreciated to offset taxes.

Meanwhile, Samsung not only faces the tooling problem, they will still have to dismantle buildings and lay of tens of thousands of work, pay severance, suffer strikes, face negative press.

In 2005, 2006, 2007, GM was generating record profits in the US. In 2008 the downturn came and they lost $40B and in 2009 were bankrupt. This is how fast things can change when you have excess capacity and employment that YOU OWN.

Apple is certainly not immune to a downturn. But they are much less exposed.

Similarly for commoditization. Apple is not immune, but they are less exposed than Samsung and other Android OEMs. The switching costs from Samsung to HTC or Moto is near zero. The switching costs from Apple are huge. All your iTunes assets, lost of iMessage, FaceTime, PhotoStream, etc with friends and family, etc, etc.

The battle is for control points. If you don't have control points you are exposed. If you have less than your competitor you are more exposed.

See the pain that LG and HTC have been going through. Due to lack of control points. Samsung built theirs with advertising/brandawareness, volume, a somewhat differentiated UI, design speed. Most are at best loose or temporary control points.

iTunes, iCloud, iMessage etc are much more lasting and higher barrier control points.

That is all.

[B a r o n 9 5]

@Leebase - Advantage of cash position. Exactly.

AND

Samsung learned it as well (being on the receiving end of Apple's cash). If you were on the Samsung earnings call, they now have $50B in cash are are "reluctant to return cash" because "they want to accurate M&A" and preserve "Strategic Options" and "Protect against a downturn in mobile". All words of their CEO.

Again. Samsung getting it and likely continuing to out-execute the Android crowd and chasing Apple-like control points.

[B a r o n 9 5]

LOL - Tomi is not allowing comments on his latest point on Elop's performance. He can't afford to let anyone comment that his argument for worst CEO falls completely flat when you look at the only performance metric that counts.

Nokia stock price the day Elop took over: EUR 7.12, US$9.58

Nokia stock price today: US$7.94

That is a 17% decline. So a 17% decline over 3 years in share price (the only thing that matters) on a company that got completely disrupted is a bad result how?!!???

How about the CEO of old GM (largest auto manufacturer), which presided over a 100% loss in share price - to ZERO?

Or CEO of Enron (largest Energy trader, top 5 energy companies in the world), which presided, also over a 100% loss in share price to ZERO, and went to jail.

And so many others that saw shareholders (and bond holders) totally wiped out?

17% share loss from a company that was totally disrupted is amazing. Outstanding performance. Elop should definitely be a candidate for Microsoft CEO.

Again. ignore Tomi's analysis. It is purely emotional and unit counting.

[E.Casais]

@Baron95

"They'll be used less or re-purposed."

a) To be profitable, capital must be used near or at full capacity. Using expensive machinery "less" means eating into margins. Fast. If you reach the point where you make losses, you can no longer amortize that capital to offset taxes anyway.

b) Special-purpose machinery, such as the one developed by/for Apple, is very difficult to re-purpose for genuinely different products. It can only be used for closely related product lines -- but since these product lines are precisely those that no longer sell well, then you are stuck.

"Samsung not only faces the tooling problem,"

If tooling is not a problem for Apple, then it is not a problem for Samsung either. Be logical.

"This is how fast things can change when you have excess capacity and employment that YOU OWN."

Wait, what? You just said the solution would be for them to use their capacity less or re-purpose it -- why didn't they do it? Face it: if excess capacity is a problem for manufacturers owning means of production, then it will be a problem for Apple, which owns its means of production. Be logical.

Either you did not read what I wrote, or you read and did not understand it, or you understood it but refuse to acknowledge it.

I explicitly stated that owning production means is economically profitable on the condition that you are able to use the capacity for mass production -- and are successful at selling this production.

Tooling is a problem for Samsung, not for Apple. Excess capacity is a disaster for others, not for Apple, which can just use its capacity "less". Apple is wonderful because it has those special-purpose machines for its specially designed products using non-standard materials, which is the strength of Apple -- but it is no problem re-purposing such special tools. Logic is definitely not your forte.

"they will still have to dismantle buildings"

Ah, buildings again.

I gather that you own Apple stock. A good tip for you: as soon as Apple announces the inauguration date of its new HQ, sell it all. There is a historically very strong relation between the inauguration of an architecturally dashing, prestigious, large HQ and the apex of a corporation. Once people move into a new grandiose HQ, it is first stagnation and then all the way down. I am not joking.

[B a r o n 9 5]

@E.Casais. You are being silly. Why didn't GM close down plants and lay off workers fast enough? You are seriously asking that question?

Do you know anyone who wanted to buy an auto plant in the unionized midwest in 2009? They couldn't sell it. Do you know how hard it is to fired an European or US union worker?

Do you know how easy it is for Hon Hai to downsize 10,000 workers? They can do it in one day.

If you don't think that owning plants staffed with union workers is a problem in downturns, you have no management experience.

A safire glass furnace is a valuable asset, and even if you don't need it, you likely can sell its output. 10,000 un-needed unionized or European workers are a boat anchor. If you can't tell the different you have no clue how the world works.

[jasa desain rumah online]

It's going to be ending of mine day, but before finish I am reading this enormous article to increase my knowledge.