Let’s do some math: a 24-exposure roll of Arista cost $2.70 (rounded up 1cent for simplicity). A 36-exposure roll holds 50% more film than a 24-exposure roll, so multiplying 2.7×1.5 we know that anything less than $4.05 for a 36-exp roll is a better value than 24-exp. I’m looking at Freestyle Photo’s site right now and one could purchase an in-date 36-exposure roll of Kodak-branded Tri-X for $4.67 (normally listed at $5.49). While I was writing this (02/08/15) I wanted to look up Arista Premium one more time and it looks like their stock is now depleted, so it’s a bit of a moot point (though I didn’t know that when I started writing).
It’s all speculation, but I’d think Kodak stopped supplying Freestyle with film because it became too hard on business trying to compete against their own product (though it was a popular practice back in the day so I understand–even Ampex used to sell off some of their 632/642 tape stock to Radio Shack who sold it as Realistic Supertape 1800ft/1200ft). I bought a 10-pack of Arista Premium just last week, but was rethinking it. Are we really so mercenary that we need to save $0.62 per roll of film, when it might be costing Kodak money it could really use at this juncture? Freestyle Photo is just a retailer, there are many more out there. If it came down to making a choice, which is more important to financially support and keep in business, Freestyle or Kodak?
As I said earlier, the point is moot now.