Ask HN: What it is like to join a startup founded by serial entrepreneurs? - <AUTHOR>

Have you worked for a startup founded by serial entrepreneurs that sold a couple of startups to big companies and started a new one with that money? Since they don't have funding issues it's a bit different. It's also different because founders execution capabilities are proven. What it is like to join such companies? <comment><USER2> It is very rewarding in the sense you can get multiple startups worth of advice. I've worked for two startups in the past several years, one with a CEO who had never sold (or scaled) a tech company. The other had a founding team with several acquisitions between them.

I heard many times "well something like this happened at XYZ company and this is what we did and it didn't or (or did work". Granted many problems are new with each venture, they all had a vast set of knowledge and startup experiences between them. I learned a lot by working with them and hearing their reasoning behind decisions.

Their network was also very, very strong as a result of having been around the block. This made for easy access to almost any company we needed to speak with.

It is also neat (and I learned the most) to be able to communicate on a very high level in all discussions. It was a totally different experience from the prior startup where I had to preface everything with a breakdown of the basics first (this is what SEO is and how it words).

</comment><comment><USER3> It depends on the startup - my company was founded by serial entrepreneurs who created companies that sold for big acquisitions, but the founders still took on VC money a little later.

By the time I joined mine, the founders left - I don't presume the reasons, but the company is currently headed by a CEO with a passion in the space and the founders as advisors & board members. The company feels like any other startup I've been at, high pressure with products that at one point were dangerously close to failing without some herculean efforts to reverse technical debt, create a pathway to scalability, and timely releases of new products/features despite waterfall planning.

I have found that engineering gets the shaft, just like at most other companies. True leadership is appallingly missing, and heedlessly put companies at risk...but I digress.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've had one client that was a serial founder, I think 3 companies already sold.

It was really different from working for "normal" first timers. He was much faster, more responsive and more likely to understand things like scope creep and technical challenges encountered ("more common sense" might describe it).

It was a real pleasure. I'll probably offer a discount to serial founders going forward...

NB: it might not mean the company "doesn't have funding issues". This founder (and many others I know) took external money because it makes sense financially. Park your savings in real estate and stocks, and take the much better terms investors will give you because of your track record. He was also quite careful with it.</comment>


Fly through a mouse brain at the Exploratorium in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://charlesvannorman.com/brainz/

<comment><AUTHOR> Fascinating how economics mirrors nature. In this case, falling prices entice buyers to wait and wait as much as they can to get a better deal, which causes the system to wind even lower, just like the tide going out and scavengers seeking ever farther down the beach for shells and fish.

Everyone tries to control the tides, but we should think more about raising the ocean in a more general sense. If there was an abundance of food, shelter, and power, price drops wouldn't have such a low bottom.

We aren't technologically that far away from it, but "bankers are scrambling". Don't worry, scientists are tinkering. :-]</comment>


Changes In Stair Design Could Help Fight Obesity - <AUTHOR> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/152734.php

<comment><USER2> > make stairs more comfortable and inviting for example, making staircases > wider with less height per step and adding music

Everyone I know takes stairs 2 steps at a time decreasing the height would just add unnecessary expansions and make the stairs a very slow (already pretty slow if you are going up more than a few floors).

From my experience staircases that are a part of the building as much as an elevator where you don't have to open a door to get to them get used quite often.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yikes, yet another set of regulations for stairs! There are already soo many, and the idea of mandating reduced riser height in the stair has serious implications for many buildings with confined areas as this means more treads will be required and thus more overall area taken out of the building for stairs. I am, however, a big fan of using stairs, but the reality of the fire codes and the function of the code necessitates fire rated walls and doors. Making the interior of the stair nicer would be great (owner would have to pay extra) and locating the stair more conveniently is also good - but codes do have impact on that decision as well as fire stairs have to exit the building directly at the base, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's not quite what I was expecting--widening stairs and lowering the slope would actually improve safety, as well. I've seen enough against-code stairs that were a positive hazard to everybody involved to get automatically antsy whenever I see somebody suggesting changing them, but this is fine from a safety POV.

It's in accordance with my experience at uni, too; everywhere that had obvious stairs would have people using them in preference to elevators, but if they're both behind doors (and the extremely industrial staircases you get in some institutional buildings don't help this) it seems like the mental effort is the same, so people wait for the elevator.

</comment><comment><USER5> I see the point of the article, but it's sort of like saying that if you only sell bland tasting food at the supermarket, you'll make people stop eating as much. And they'll be healthier! Sacrificing the accessibility/ease of use of a building to "fight obesity" seems interesting but not a sacrifice I'd be willing to make if I were an architect.

Forcing people to take the stairs by making "legislative" and architectural changes is not the solution to the problem. The solution is to help people change their habits.

<comment><USER6> Thing is, this recent HN article...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=642677>

...is actually tangentially relevant here, if you think about it.

The article _this_ comment is attached to isn't really about "forcing" people to take the stairs, but to make using the stairs a more natural or obvious option to people. In too many tall buildings, the combination of architectural traditions and building codes lead to stairs being "out of sight, out of mind."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The idea of forcing people to take the stairs to fight obesity is currently a running experiment at the new San Francisco Federal Building.

Results are mixed, see i.e. <http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5428>

From the article:

 _According to my source, architect Mayne has stated that federal office workers do not get enough exercise. To address this, he installed elevators in the building that only stop at every third floor. This requires employees to walk up or down one or two flights of metal stairs._

 _Persons with physical disabilities who cannot use stairs can use a separate elevator that stops at every floor. The foreseeable result is that employees seeking to avoid stairs use the disabled access elevator, leaving this car crammed with people and making the ride to the top extremely slow._

</comment><comment><USER8> "Some simple interventions can do much toward encouraging people to take the stairs, research suggests. For example, a study performed at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention building found that playing music in stairwells and displaying motivational signs significantly increased the use of stairs."

Stairwell music?

<comment><USER9> Sure, why not? After going up 14 flights of stairs I'm already breathing hard, which can be embarassing when there are others around. I'd prefer music to silence where everyone can hear you plodding and gasping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Air conditioning would be nice. A stairwell in the sun can easily get over 100 degrees. Alternatively some insulation and natural airflow could probably achieve acceptable results.

</comment><comment><USER11> Making stairwells more pleasant would be nice, but any stairways with too many additional features such as natural lighting would have to be constructed in addition to the fireproof stairs required by building codes, so I imagine that builders will continue to follow the path of least resistance and only provide unpleasant stairways.

</comment><comment><USER12> Oh please. If you can't walk a little further and find the stairs and open a door you aren't going to climb 3 or for 4 flights. The lazy are lazy for a reason.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think there are also Fire Code issues with stairwells. They can act as giant chimneys that create a draft which will accelerate a fire and spread it rapidly.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm here to announce my skepticism that the less than three round-trip circuits people take daily on a flight of stairs will have anything but negligible impact on their health.

<comment><USER15> It also probably won't make a difference for people who work on the 10th floor...</comment></comment>


How an email got a guy his foursquare job - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/18/businessinsider-this-email-got-one-stanford-student-a-huge-job-at-foursquare-2011-7.DTL&tsp=1

<comment><USER2> Initiative is good, but it never hurts to be a Stanford MBA, be a recent grad, and have Wall Street experience.

<comment><USER3> and having been an intern for twitter...</comment></comment>


When 4.3 Stars Is Average: The Internet's Grade-Inflation Problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-4-3-stars-is-average-the-internets-grade-inflation-problem-1491414200 <comment><USER2> IMDB ratings are mostly fairly accurate though.</comment>


How to make homemade baby wipes - <AUTHOR> https://www.ikkaro.net/homemade-baby-wipes/ <comment><USER2> No way the paper version has enough strength (unless you let it dry thoroughly???). In the best case scenario it will break while you are trying to extract it from the roll, in the worse case ...</comment>


Ask HN: Where do I start if I want to learn AJAX? - <AUTHOR>

AJAX has been something I have always wanted to pick up, but not sure where to begin.  I am not very familiar with Javascript either.  Could you please recommend any online tutorials or book that's good for someone new to AJAX?
I have heard AJAX is really hard to pickup without using an existing framework, is that really the case?  If it is, which framework should I begin with? (I actually find that a bit hard to believe, and really want to learn the fundamentals)
I have a fair amount of programming experience.  Web development experience is primarily with php/sql, if that helps with any suggestions :)
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Try jquery.

BTW, it's not so much that ajax is "hard" without a framework. The problem is with the varying ways different browsers implement javascript and the DOM. A good framework (like jquery) abstracts away many of these variations and allows you to concentrate on the more interesting hard problems.

<comment><USER3> +1 for jquery, and for the comment suggesting the javascript book. Javascript and DOM quirks are probably the biggest stumbling blocks if you are already a decent programmer. Douglas Crockford's videos are also worth watching, if you have the time. <http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/>

<comment><USER4> +1 for Crockford's lectures. And his website: <http://www.crockford.com/javascript/>

He's got a new book coming out soon too. I haven't seen it yet, but I imagine it will be pretty good.

"Javascript: The Definitive Guide" (published by O'Reilly) is a good resource as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you don't already know JavaScript, and probably even if you do, Douglas Crockford's videos are awesome. He also covers the DOM, which is intrinsic to working with AJAX.

<http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/>

Start with "The JavaScript Programming Language", and then do "Advanced JavaScript" and finally "An Inconvenient API: The Theory of the DOM" (the latter two can stand alone, and if you're in a hurry, maybe get the DOM out of the way). That plus spending some time with Firebug and a few interesting JavaScript applications (and building some of my own) has been the entirety of my JavaScript education. I bought the "Definitive Guide" from O'Reilly, but haven't used it heavily.

There are other useful videos on the same page, including one with Joe Hewitt introducing Firebug. I can't stress enough how helpful Firebug has been in helping me learn JavaScript and AJAX.

Note that I haven't talked much about AJAX. AJAX is a tiny piece of JavaScript, but in order to build useful applications you need to know a lot more than AJAX. So, learn JavaScript and AJAX will come naturally.

As others have mentioned, the good frameworks make dealing with browsers easier, since it hides compatibility issues as well as some of the complexity. Mainly a framework just allows you to spend more time thinking about your specific needs rather than the tedious plumbing work of getting stuff happening on the page.

<comment><USER3> Oh yeah, +1 Firebug. You need Firebug. Figuring out WTF is going on is nearly impossible without it, unless you're a masochist and enjoy debugging via alert dialogs.

<comment><USER6> and yes, Firebug is a must. the "Inspect" feature is FTW

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> <http://www.w3schools.com/Ajax/Default.Asp>

This gives a pretty good introduction at what is actually going on. The framework I've used (Prototype) abstracts away the details (like constructing the XMLHttpRequest) but its always good to know whats going on below the surface.

If you know any python, this link - <http://www.willarson.com/blog/?p=36> \- is very helpful, it was how I got started. The actual AJAX part of it is the same no matter which server side language you use.

<comment><USER8> Prototype is really a horrible framework. It works by adding methods to every class in the language, even when they don't make sense. This makes for a bit of syntactic sugar, but it also ensures that you can't use other frameworks and that custom code might become very hard to debug.

For your own sake, use _anything_ else.

<comment><USER9> Layering frameworks probably isn't a good idea to begin with. Prototype does seem, unfortunately, more powerful than jQuery, though, when it comes to class creation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The other comments in the thread seem to tell you to use a framework, and that's great advice. But you need to learn plain javascript first. You say you've mostly done PHP, so there are some programming concepts that are essential in javascript that you haven't been exposed to, namely functional programming. So, learn a bit about functional programming, then get a javascript book (the oreilly one is good), and read that. Then you'll know the basics and can use a framework to abstract away some of the tedium.

<comment><USER10> No, you can just use Java with GWT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> You should learn the basics before letting some higher-level framework do all the magic for you.

There are some good articles about AJAX on the Mozilla Developer Center: <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX>

You can begin with <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX:Getting_Started>

You can also find some good pointers to AJAX toolkits and examples there.

</comment><comment><USER12> I really liked the book "Pragmatic Ajax: A Web 2.0 Primer" ([http://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Ajax- Web-2-0-Primer/dp/09766...](http://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Ajax- Web-2-0-Primer/dp/0976694085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209355518&sr=8-1))

It provides an overview of the more popular frameworks, and explains the ideas behind rich web interaction (and Google Maps in particular).

</comment><comment><USER13> Frocer, I'm in the same position, minus having had a fair amount of programming experience(only a couple of Java classes in college). Would you be up for exchanging IM or other contact info, so we each have someone to bounce things off of as we learn?

My e-mail's in my profile, and the offer is open to others as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely! I will send you an Email and we can exchange info. I am always looking for people who I can bounce ideas off with :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The way I picked up AJAX was by looking of some of the simpler articles on the basics (don't worry about cross-browser to start with) around the web. The basic concept is quite simple and it is easy to get up-and-running if you have experience with client-side and server-side scripting.

For me, the firebug tool for firefox was indispensable as it allows you to see the requests that are being sent out and received from the server, information you have no easy way to get at without such a tool.

Once you are up and running with the basics, the magic of AJAX will no longer be so mysterious and you can move on to one of the frameworks for adding cross-browser compatibility (I like jquery personally).

</comment><comment><USER15> You need to learn Javascript before you learn AJAX. AJAX is really a simple set of method calls, the harder part is really understanding DOM manipulation, event handling, etc.

I highly recommend the Sitepoint books -- "Simply Javascript" and "The Art and Science of Javascript." Between these two books, you get a very step-by-step, approachable tutorial of the basics of what you need to start out with.

They teach you in framework-agnostic way, which is important because you want to be able to write JS without relying heavily on any one framework. In fact, one of the books goes into detail teaching you HOW some frameworks work their magic. It's fascinating.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> If you already know Javascript, all you need to become buzzword compliant is this: [http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/xmlhttpreq.ht...](http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/xmlhttpreq.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Lots of good comments here... <http://www.miniajax.com> has some cool ajax "widgets" that can help you tackle certain problems with digestible chunks of code.

</comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/views/web/libraryview.jsp?...](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/views/web/libraryview.jsp?search_by=Mastering+Ajax)

Particularly tutorial 5.

It's a pretty good/quick overview of how all the bits of Ajax (JS, the DOM, XHR, Markup, etc.) work together, along with brief, functional examples. Should get you orientated in a hurry, then you can dive into the various topics as needed.

</comment><comment><USER18> I found the book "DOM Scripting" great. There's a brief intro to javascript syntax, then alot of focus on using javascript with the DOM and making sure you do it according to some best practices. The book finishes with an intro to ajax and is followed by a book called "Bulletproof AJAX" by the same bloke. The gracefully degrading and unobtrusive use of javascript is important, and the author of these books preaches it well.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you are familiar with web programming today, Ajax isn't a tough technology to master. There are hundreds of simple frameworks you can start with. Grab any of them, find a simple tutorial and start tooling around.

The concept is simple: send and load information without refreshing the webpage. You'll use the same back-end technology. You'll use a smattering of Javascript for the browser. And you'll be in business!

<comment><USER10> The problem though is that AJAX app development is a mess (e.g., in terms of dealing with compatibility issues across browsers and different versions of the same browser, using the slow minimal dynamic language Javascript, poor tool support, etc). At least Google's GWT tries to clean up a bit of this mess. A better way to go in the future might be to use Silverlight.

<comment><USER20> It's really not. Compatibility issues are seriously way way over-hyped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Instead of 'ajax' which doesn't really exist, I'd recommend learning javascript. Don't start with a framework or library, just learn the nuts and bolts of the language.

The incompatibilities between browsers are really really over-hyped, so I'd say using a library isn't worth it. At least until you have a solid understanding of all things javascript.

</comment><comment><USER21> start with javascript...

<comment><USER22> I agree. JavaScript is a pretty crucial step before really tapping into AJAX, particularly if you want to execute scripts you retrieve via AJAX. I'm not sure if any script packages have that. Also, I find it useful to work from scratch, particularly for client-side stuff like CSS and JavaScript, so your users load the page faster.

<comment><USER4> I can't tell, are you being sarcastic? You realize AJAX is just a fancy name for using JavaScript to load content dynamically?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://rajshekhar.net/blog/archives/85-Rasmus-30-second- AJAX...](http://rajshekhar.net/blog/archives/85-Rasmus-30-second-AJAX- Tutorial.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Try Google's GWT.

</comment><comment><USER24> Head First AJAX by O'Reilly.

</comment><comment><USER25> Whatever you do do not under any circumstances use plain javascript. It will not work at all in IE. Isn't it ridiculous that javascript is not even functional as a language unless you extend it with a framework?

I advise prototype.

<comment><USER20> What??? That makes absolutely no sense. Javascript works just fine in IE.</comment></comment>


Help for Startups – A semi-complete list of startup accelerator programs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.shedd.us/321987608/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for posting. There are some comments on the post on HN here - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047762> \-- the link was changed when I ported my blog from Tumblr to WordPress.</comment>


To Improve Your Sense of Direction, Lose the Technology (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/science/walking-directions-mobile-phone.html <comment><USER2> This is really foreign to me. Direction has never really been a question.

I grew up rural. Direction, where north is, etc... got built in early. Long hikes into the hills, canyons. By teen age years, most of us had the whole place mapped.

Today, I still can catch myself orienting, picking up references. When I travel abroad, I experience this massive orientation for a while, placing everything new with reapect to that which is known.

As a very young person, direction was a part of memory. I can tell you which direction all our houses faced and what was nearby.

Late 60's and early 70's were when those defining times happened. Maps made immediate sense.

If I were to struggle with this today, losing the tech is one option, but augmenting senses in the ways mentioned are likely to have better outcomes.

If you value these things, you want to grok, in the sense Heinlein meant. Make it an intrinsic part of you, automatic.

One of my favorites is sitting in an airplane. Front seats are different from kiddle and rear ones too. But, when I concentrate, I can feel the course changes, look out the window, identify the center point of a turn...

I feel this is something, this direction awareness, almost all of us can improve on. Worth it.

Seems to me apps can help here. Give people aural, haptic feedback and just have them place their phone consistently.

</comment><comment><USER3> Always be aware of where the Sun is: how high in the sky, and in which direction.The Sun will always tell you where North (or South) is. It becomes so ingrained that North is always automatically known.

Yes some days are cloudier than others, but the direction of the brightest light can be ascertained at many times during the day. Do the same at night with a few favorite stars/constellations.

NOTE: The directions below are for the Southern Hemisphere, adjust accordingly for the Northern Hemisphere.

In the morning the Sun will lie east (right) of North and be lower in the sky.

At midday, the Sun will be high in the sky and more or less directly North.

In the afternoon the Sun will be west (left) of North and lower in the sky.</comment>


Banking data: Why MEPs must say no to SWIFT agreement - <AUTHOR> http://brusselsblogger.blogactiv.eu/2010/02/07/banking-data-why-meps-must-say-no-to-swift-agreement/

<comment><AUTHOR> Dear The Government of the US,

Can we have all your banking transaction data in return, so we can mine it to see what your corporations are up to? It's only fair.

Yours sincerely,

Citizens of the EU.

</comment><comment><USER2> I can understand every point of that... apart from the first:

"Jenine Hennis-Plasschaert, made it very clear in her report that SWIFT is actually unable to provide tailored data about individual transactions"

How can anyone seriously believe that organisation which deals mainly with cash transfers cannot provide a filtered report on cash transfers? From a "technical" point of view? That's simply a lie - they might not want to spend time implementing the proper report generation which might take months in such organisation, or might not be able to afford enough storage to keep the needed information to do such filtering, it might be not practical, etc. But who would believe in a "technical" reason?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do they have the data to filter? Given they're just a clearing house for sending messages between banks, it's not implausible that they might only have source and destination account numbers and amount.

I'm not saying they do, I can't find the actual contents of the message with a quick search, but isn't that a plausible technical reason?

But there's no good reason why the EU should hand _any_ data to the US, filtered or not.

<comment><USER2> From what I understood, they can send all the data - so why not just a fragment? They operate on full account numbers which can be mapped to a any region/bank via IBAN needed for SWIFT transfer after all... Maybe I'm jumping to wrong conclusions here, it just seems highly unlikely / crazy that they're able to send everything, but not a subset.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sending a subset is easy, but choosing that subset can be more difficult.

I doubt the selection criteria would resolve around which bank, but information about the account holders and their status. This data will only be available to SWIFT's customer banks. Building an interface to query this data in a standard form from lots of banks would be a nightmare.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is velocity a good metric to measure team performance? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Short answer is no.

Problem with the velocity is that we developers are really poor in estimates and the velocity is rarely accurate enough.

So what I would like to recommend is that you first check your definition of done and then start experimenting with velocity by following how many stories you get done per week. After 4 weeks calculate the average. Each week through out put should be fitted in 1 Standard deviation (Normal distribution). Make it a strict rule that only ready for prod is done done.

This contains a problem that the stories are not equal size but when we experimented with this we used shirt sizes (S, M, L) and made a rule that only S and M size stories (Small enough) where only allowed inside the sprint. Our S was max 2 days and M max 5 days. We got to a point where our through out put was 3 stories per week (Small team: 2 devs + a test expert).

</comment><comment><USER3> No. Agile does not work. Tasks will get delayed, need reviewing, etc, etc. A task is done when it's done. Deal with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree with you. We tried, but things aren't expected</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Touchscreen Laptops, yay or nay? - <AUTHOR>

Are touchscreen laptops a new direction in user/computer interaction or a fad spawned by the prevalence of cheap technology and excess capital?<p>currently saddled with an Acer Aspire. thus far, ubuntu 12.04 is the only one that can keep it together, sort of. On xfce now, and Mint 16 was a nightmare. The touchscreen seems to throw Linux builds for a loop... <comment><USER2> I'm not enamoured of them, but it's quite possible that they will be popular with the world at large. One factor is that so many laptops have frankly bad touchpads, that people may see the touchscreen as an improvement. People seem to like touchscreens, have got very used to them, and there may be a perception that modern devices get touchscreens.

Overheard in the wild: "I'd like to buy a Macbook, but it seems so weird that they don't have touchscreens yet. I'm holding off buying one in case the next one has a touchscreen."

</comment><comment><USER3> It is a fad, one that has already been rejected on the market. See www.digitimes.com/news/a20131211PD217.html

My personal experience with a touchscreen laptop running Windows 8 was that once the novelty wears of, it feels unnatural to reach beyond your touchpad to the touchscreen for input. The touchpad is closer to the user's hands and therefore faster to access and that beats everything a touchscreen could offer.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a touchscreen laptop but almost never use the feature. On Xubuntu it seems to work without any issues though.

I suspect it's just a fad because the tech is cheap (my laptop was < $400). I think the movement is unnatural. I'd rather see companies focus on innovation in the trackpad.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would hate touchscreen laptop.

I find it weird to be poking something that I am also expected to read. My fingers obscure the screen, and there is increased screen cleaning.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think it depends on your usage of it. If you're going to be coding mostly, then you'll really only be using the keyboard... so a touchscreen may not be needed.

<comment><USER7> I would agree with that; my sister has a nice touchscreen laptop (~$1000) and she uses it for watching movies, tv shows, etc; mostly media based uses. She loves it and uses it all the time, so I would agree with you that it does depend on what the user will be using it for. Myself, as a programmer, and programming being what I primarily use my laptop for, I would find it unnecessary and I wouldn't pay extra to have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I bought an HP laptop with a touchscreen around 2010. I still use it today, but I've never used the touchscreen aside from showing off.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think it's a cool option to have but not something I'd require</comment>