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.