Comments on: First look at the Panasonic DMP-B15, first portable Blu-ray player

CNET takes an initial hands-on look at the Panasonic DMP-B15, the first portable Blu-ray player.

[spartanbob]

I have an 17 inch HP laptop with a blu ray player, and a HDMI output. I got it for $800 this past year at BB, why would I buy this thing?

[skwerlhater0]

I agree, there's no reason to splurge on something that plays back movies and nothing else (why would you need 1080p on an 8.9" display anyway??). At least the HP can, you know, do something else!

[rnaoncfixd]

A 17" HP laptop for $800? I would question the resolution of that screen. In either case, It should be as good as or at least better than the Panasonic Portable. I agree that a laptop with BD access would be a better decision.

[zbangando]

Another very good example. This player certainly does not appeal to the everyday target shopper.

[mraardvark]

Even a DVD's resolution is more than you need at that size. The point is, if you bought lets say Dark Knight on Blu ray and want to watch on the plane ride home you don't have to buy a DVD copy. But at 800$ I agree that there are plenty of laptops that would be a better choice.

[Weeji]

"The point is, if you bought lets say Dark Knight on Blu ray and want to watch on the plane ride home you don't have to buy a DVD copy."

How many $5 - $15 "duplicate" DVDs not purchased does it take to make the $800 price worth it? Also, there are other outlets, such as renting, that make it even cheaper. Oh, and many high-profile Blu-rays are starting to come with a digital copy.

[felderga]

When the price drops to under $200 it will be worth it. Also why can't they add a ATSC tuner to these portables anyway. I really don't think it would add much to the price

[ThinkerT]

I don't think he was defending the $800, I think he was saying that whether Blu-Ray's resolution is wasted on a screen that small is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, it's not just the cost of duplicate DVDs - it's the hassle of having to manage twice as many pieces of media. While I agree that $800 is probably prohibitive for most people right now, I'm sure most people would prefer the convenience of having a portable Blu-Ray player than the hassle of re-buying their media collection, finding space to put them, etc.

[steve5200]

What a silly way to spend $800.

[wizardb]

Blu Ray what a wasted of time it's basically a dead issue why carry on about BR anything

[OracleDev]

Waste of money. Worth is not more than $199 specialy when you can get a loaded laptop for under $799.

[zbangando]

I would have to say about $300, the same as an iPod Touch 2G.

[freddy_ace]

What a waste of $800! Bluray on a tiny screen with tiny speakers. But price it the same as regular portables and it'll fly off the shelfs!

[zbangando]

To evade these shortcomings they included a HDMI out, possibly 1.3a.

[zbangando]

You could buy an excellent blue-ray player for this price. On reason to buy this is if you want to get hi def without all the clutter, even then this screen's resolution is hard to excuse.

[AnthonyNYC]

It looks bulky, why don't they design nice cheap slim movie players that can playback highly compressed mp4 files and divx movies off a usb stick or sd card slot, and video will still look great at that mall size, then you got a product people might want to carry around on airplanes and business trips. But business men have loptops anyway, so they can play divx movies now, this seems like an un needed device.

[EdgeOne]

Blu Ray "is slowly becoming mainstream"? Among Cnet readers, possibly, but the mainstream public? Not even close. The only thing keeping the format alive is the PS3 and videophiles. I crave technology, but this thing is truly a joke.