this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
385 points (99.7% liked)
Non-Serious Technology
70 readers
14 users here now
A community for non- serious tech articles.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hot take.
printers are good.
ink jet makes for cheap printers and expensive ink. they are even subsidised so companies profit from ink. but they are shite.
a laser printer starts at 150$ and colour one at twice as much. never had a problem with those and as a bonus they print much much faster and the paper is nice and warm, and toner costs a fraction of the cost per page compared to ink.
honestly, ink jet printers need to die. imagine if we still used floppy disks for some reason and then people complained how unreliable and inconvenient external data storage is while we have external SSDs available but they cost a bit more than floppies but at orders of magnitude more value.
When you want to print photos though you need an inkjet.
For that once in a lifetime opportunity just take it to Staples on a flash drive.
Ordering them online is easier these days.
What device gets used to print your online order?
A commercial printer of some kind. Why?
Well, what if it turns out to be a commercial inkjet printer?
What if that has to die?
Then you only have the option for looking for photo-quality colour laser which will possibly cost even more.
And that would increase the barrier for entry to those.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
You can read the comment that started this thread for context.
Agreed. Funny thing though, had inkjet printers for 15+ years in the past and maybe printed a photo twice. Ink was just expensive. Today, I'd sooner use those zero ink photo printers for it.
Yep. When Grandma wants a tangible photo of one of the Grandkids, HP inkjet it is. And anyone who says "Just get a laser printer" has never priced a photo quality Laser......
unless you print a lot of pictures. got once in a while, might be better to get them printed somewhere at might higher quality
Or the nearest photo printer is a 100 mile round trip...........
online services?
That does not fulfill the Grandmother requirement of needing that photo NOW so she can add it to her constantly evolving wall of photos.
grandma is a good reason.
carry on,
I love that "printers are good" is (rightfully) considered a hot take
The only reason I'd print anything is for artwork. Laser is incredibly bad at making nice colours.
Also... Isn't laser essentially beaming small plastic particles into the paper? Another win for microplastics.
Plastic powder based toner, yes. But there's multiple types of pigment, not just that
The laser is not beaming anything except light. It changes a static charge on the print drum in the desired shape that the toner particles are attracted to and then fused on to the paper by the hot fuser.
Ok, but the toner particles are still plastic.
I don't think as many people need printers at home anymore, and many of us can get by printing at the library or copy shop or wherever. Costco? I dunno. I've got 3 different LaserJets I'm part of the problem, but many of us have the option of letting someone else bear the costs of maintaining the printer, and as a plus at the print shop we have options for better quality prints. If so, especially in this lentil economy, make lentils in printing.