2 comments

[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 15.5 ms ] thread
Almost legit article (has little to say) but boy that is a spammy headline with multiple repeated keywords and phrases ("best printer" x 2), ("print..." x 4), ("use" x 2), etc. For "office use" you probably are willing to pay a little more and there are more good choices such as Xerox Workcentre printers.

I also disagree with the hating on inkjets. I agree a B&W laser is a good choice for most people but I have a hobby of printing photographs, art reproduction, anime art and such:

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110607498804590869

and I think the quality of results you can get is astonishing if you use quality materials and I don't complain about the cost (low in my case because I use a tank printer) because it sure would cost most to make one-off prints any other way. (If I wanted 10,000 prints I could make offset litho plates, it would be cheaper, and I'd have a great selection of high-performance inks, but I don't want that many)

The spammy headline is the point of the article, for what it's worth.

> It’s weird because the correct answer to the query “what is the best printer” has not changed, but an entire ecosystem of content farms seems motivated to constantly update articles about printers in response to the incentive structure created by that robot’s obvious preferences