This one is different you say. Filmfresh lets users purchase Legitimate DivX rips of latest Hollywood releases ranging from the Watchmen to the just released on DVD -17 again. The catch here is that it is not DRM-free, but can be played on all DivX supporting players and Sony PS3 etc. Also there is no expiry date on the downloaded movies. So it is not a rent model, but more like owning a lower Quality rip also without the DVD extras. The cost per movie download is 10$ -13$ which is on the higher side, since DVDs cost just a few bucks more.

Considering all of this, do we see a future for this particular business model? Take this.

Netflix rents out DVDs for $8.99 a month onwards for one-DVD for a month. This is almost a dollar cheaper than the DivX rip to be owned [assuming the user would order just a single DVD per month]. The DivX rip has no DVD extras, and the selection is going to anyway consist of lesser titles which customers want to own and keep as a showpiece in their personal library of titles. For such movies, such as the Matrix or the Star Wars trilogy, a cinema lover would not spend 10$ on a DivX copy, but spend a few bucks more to own the DVD or heck, the Blu-Ray [ which I know is expensive]. But, for a movie to be experimented with, consumers would adopt the renting system from Blockbusters or Netflix, which is far cheaper.

It’s being backed by Sony, Lionsgate, WB, Paramount etc. So it seems this is just not going to die yet. But yes, the pricing model has to be reevaluated to make this actually work. I suggest the service reduces the price to almost half of it- say around 5$ and also offer the entire DVD ripped along with the extras. Plus, the DivX has to be ripped with the best of settings.

Sorry, I can’t still convince myself to see this working. Why would someone pay(such a ridiculously higher price) to own a movie which is at a lower quality than DVD? The pricing has to compensate for all these losses.

..................................................................................