Don’t blame me. I don’t even own a printer. On the extremely rare occasion that I actually need to print something there are plenty of places that will do it for pennies. I haven’t spent more than a dollar in a year since I gave up owning a printer of my own, and the prints are all way higher quality anyway. A laser printer still costs more than an inkjet and the ink to fill it though, and the idea that years down the line it will pay for itself just doesn’t occur to or even matter to most people.

Wasn’t that their point though? That the laser is lower running cost but despite that still not worth it for someone who doesn’t print often enough? If savings in running cost are such that it’ll take a decade to recoup the difference in initial outlay at the rate of home printing then despite the laser being objectively better it might not be worth it for extremely low volume printing.

I goddamn hate my piece of shit inkjet and didn’t know laser printers had become something viable for consumers so I’d love for them to be wrong.