🔗 Share this article

"Half of my personal history is archived on Snapchat, and suddenly they expect us to fork out money for it."

One-star feedback and a perception of inequity have dominated social media conversations since the messaging service joined the latest technology company to start charging for a feature that users previously enjoyed using for at no cost.

The company behind Snapchat announced in September that it would start charging users if they have exceeding five gigabytes of saved images and clips stored as the Memories feature.

Among numerous users, these old snaps act as a window to the past – leading some to criticize the company of "corporate greed" in posts on digital networks and unfavorable feedback on mobile app marketplaces.

Available Solutions

Snapchat's parent has compared its subscription options to those provided by Apple and Google for handsets.

As another possibility for those who don't want to pay, members can download their Memories – which for certain users amount to large volumes – to their personal gadget.

The firm mentioned that only a minority of subscribers would be impacted by the changes.

It also acknowledged that it was "never easy to move from accessing content at no charge to covering the expense" – but implied it would be "a valuable investment" for members.

A significant number of denouncing the change via digital channels clearly oppose this view.

Public Outcry

An online petition labeled the cost a "memory tax", with users describing it "dystopian" and "ridiculous" – while a user threatened to quit the application in the future.

Meanwhile, in a one-star evaluation on the app marketplace, a user identifying as a pseudonymous user said it felt "deeply unfair".

"As a member of that generation, the majority have years worth of personal moments on Snapchat," they wrote. "The vast majority only continued using Snapchat mostly for that reason. 5GB is absolutely nothing when you have a long timeline of recordings... Farewell Snapchat."

Additionally, a journalism student, a young adult media studies major in the UK capital, revealed on the video platform her intention to delete the application.

"I decided that I needed to download all my saved content as immediately," she stated. "The vast majority of my adolescence have been recorded through my saved snaps, all of the photos in there are extremely valuable to me."

"This seems illogical to start charging users for a service that has been complimentary for a considerable period."

Unspecified Pricing

Snapchat has not disclosed how much storage plans would be priced at in the Britain – only that they are part of a "phased international launch".

But 23-year-old Amber Daley, who also lives in London, said in a video on the video service that she would be "upset" by such charges.

The user noted that the service had become "a regular habit" since she started using it in 2014.

Although she acknowledged she understood the platform needed to generate revenue, Amber indicated that the archival function is more valuable than the company may have realized.

"In my opinion it's a somewhat inequitable step to charge your subscribers who have been consistent and engaged," she explained. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our actual memories."

Expert Analysis

Companies deciding to charge from customers for a feature that was once complimentary is nothing new, and countless individuals cover the cost of options like cloud storage solutions to save their photos and videos from their mobile device.

The truth of archiving content in the cloud – which some in the tech industry frequently call as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it costs money.

"Managing vast amounts of saved content on the service isn't a trivial amount," online expert an industry analyst stated. "The platform has to try to find a way to fund the operation of archiving, network usage, copies, media distribution, encryption – all that stuff."

Yet the expert noted that requiring payment for a feature that had once been complimentary, and subscribers had been encouraged to use as such, may feel like a "bait and switch" for certain individuals.

"Altering the terms after individuals have accumulated this extensive stored content feels inappropriate," he said. In the view of countless individuals, he added, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're personal mementos."

The feeling was reflected by those submitting unfavorable comments, with one person calling their archived media "the most precious thing to me".

"[Memories] have each part of my personal journey within them from celebrations of new family members' births, sad moments of loss, memories with friends/family, [and] my whole teenage years," they expressed.

Expert Analysis

Dr Taylor Annabell, a university scholar at Utrecht University in the Holland, said that the platform's decision shows the implications of commercial platforms being used to archive meaningful individual recordings.

"Platforms gain from this confidence, interdependence, and assumption of perpetual availability, which even motivates certain individuals to remain with the platform or keep accessing it in order to scroll back through their saved content," she explained to journalists. "However these are not charitable custodians of private remembrance."