🔗 Share this article

"A significant portion of my life is archived on Snapchat, and suddenly they expect us to pay for it."

Negative feedback and a perception of inequity have dominated online discussion since Snapchat emerged as the latest technology company to put a price tag on a function that users previously utilized for without payment.

The app's parent company announced in September that it would require payment from subscribers if they have more than five GB of saved images and videos stored as the Memories feature.

For many, these old snaps function as a glimpse into earlier times – prompting some to blast the firm of "corporate greed" in posts on online platforms and poor feedback on mobile app marketplaces.

Other Choices

Snap has likened its paid storage plans to those offered by tech giants for handsets.

And as an alternative for those who don't want to pay, members have the ability to export their Memories – which for many people span tens of gigabytes – to their personal gadget.

Snap stated that only a minority of users would be impacted by the changes.

The company admitted that it was "inherently difficult to transition from receiving a service for free to covering the expense" – but proposed it would be "a valuable investment" for subscribers.

A significant number of denouncing the change online appear unconvinced.

Widespread Discontent

A digital campaign called the cost a "memory tax", with commenters labeling it "Orwellian" and "absurd" – while a user promised to abandon the platform again.

In parallel, in a one-star review on the digital platform, a user named Natacha Jonsson said it felt "very unethical".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, the majority have years worth of personal moments on the platform," they said. "And most of us only continued using Snapchat primarily for this purpose. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have extensive collections of memories... Farewell Snapchat."

Furthermore, a London-based user, a 20-year-old media studies major in the UK capital, posted on the video platform her decision to delete the app.

"I concluded that I needed to download all my saved content as quickly as possible," she explained. "The vast majority of my adolescence have been documented through my archived posts, all of the pictures in there are extremely valuable to me."

"The decision appears unreasonable to introduce fees individuals for something that has been complimentary for such a long time."

Unknown Fees

Snapchat has not disclosed how much premium options would require in the Britain – only that they are part of a "phased international launch".

But 23-year-old a different individual, who is based in London, commented in a post on the social platform that she would be "distraught" by such charges.

The user explained that the service had become "a part of everyday life" since she began accessing it in several years ago.

While she said she recognized the app needed to earn income, the user proposed that the archival function means more to users than the company may have anticipated.

"In my opinion it's a rather unjust move to demand payment from your subscribers who have been faithful and dedicated," she said. "This feature is more than a name, these are our real-life recollections."

Industry Perspective

Businesses opting to impose fees from subscribers for a feature that was previously free is nothing new, and millions cover the cost of platforms like iCloud and Google Drive to backup their photos and videos from their handset.

The truth of archiving content in the cloud – which some in the technology sector like to refer to as simply "an external server" – is that it involves expenses.

"Storing enormous quantities of archived media on the service demands considerable investment," online expert a tech commentator stated. "The platform has to attempt to identify a approach to offset the expenses of data retention, network usage, duplicates, file sharing, security measures – all that stuff."

But the consultant noted that introducing fees for a function that had once been complimentary, and subscribers had been encouraged to use as such, may seem like a "bait and switch" for certain individuals.

"Altering the terms after individuals have created this extensive stored content seems unfair," he noted. And for many, he continued, "Memories aren't just data dumps, they're emotional artefacts."

The opinion was shared by those posting critical reviews, with a user describing their Snapchat photos and videos "extremely valuable to me".

"The stored media includes all elements of my experiences within them from joyful events like births, mourning of passed loved ones, memories with friends/family, [and] my complete adolescence," they commented.

Expert Analysis

Dr Taylor Annabell, a research fellow at a Dutch institution in the the Low Countries, explained that the platform's decision demonstrates the implications of business-oriented apps being used to save sentimental personal content.

"Platforms gain from this trust, interdependence, and presumption of never-ending access, which even incentivises certain individuals to remain with the platform or continue to use it in order to review their stored media," she informed journalists. "But these are not charitable custodians of personal memory."