🔗 Share this article

"Half of my personal history is archived on Snapchat, and unexpectedly they demand us to cover the cost for it."

Negative feedback and a sense of inequity have taken over social media conversations since the messaging service emerged as the most recent tech firm to put a price tag on a feature that users previously enjoyed using for free.

The company behind Snapchat revealed in the fall that it would require payment from people if they have over five GB of saved pictures and videos stored as Snapchat Memories.

In the eyes of countless individuals, these retro posts function as a window to the past – driving some to blast the corporation of "corporate greed" in comments on social media and poor feedback on Google and Apple's app stores.

Other Choices

Snapchat's parent has compared its subscription options to those offered by tech giants for handsets.

For those seeking another option for those who don't want to pay, members have the ability to export their saved content – which for many people span significant data – to their personal gadget.

The firm indicated that only a small number of members would be impacted by the updated terms.

They recognized that it was "inherently difficult to shift from receiving a service for free to paying for it" – but suggested it would be "worth the cost" for users.

Many denouncing the move via digital channels seem to disagree.

Public Outcry

A web-based protest called the charge a "memory tax", with users labeling it "bleak" and "absurd" – while one person vowed to abandon the platform again.

Meanwhile, in a one-star review on the app marketplace, a person calling themselves Natacha Jonsson said it felt "deeply unfair".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, the majority have a long history of memories on this service," they said. "And most of us only remained on the platform mostly for that feature. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have extensive collections of memories... Farewell Snapchat."

And, Guste Ven, a young adult aspiring reporter in the UK capital, posted on the video platform her decision to delete the platform.

"I made up my mind that I wanted to export all my memories as immediately," she explained. "Almost all of my adolescence have been recorded through my Snapchat memories, all of the images in there are extremely valuable to me."

"This seems illogical to demand payment users for a feature that has been complimentary for such a long time."

Uncertain Costs

Snapchat has not yet said how much storage plans would be priced at in the UK – only that they are part of a "gradual global rollout".

However a young adult Amber Daley, who resides in the capital, commented in a video on the social platform that she would be "upset" by these fees.

The user explained that the platform had become "a part of everyday life" since she started using it in 2014.

Despite admitting she understood the service needed to earn income, she suggested that the Memories feature is more valuable than the firm may have understood.

"In my opinion it's quite an unfair move to charge your customers who have been faithful and dedicated," she explained. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our real-life recollections."

Professional Insight

Firms opting to impose fees from users for a feature that was earlier without cost is nothing new, and numerous people cover the cost of platforms like cloud storage solutions to preserve their media content from their mobile device.

The fact of storing data in the online servers – which various commentators in the technology sector often describe as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it involves expenses.

"Hosting enormous quantities of Memories on the service isn't a trivial amount," digital strategist Matt Navarra commented. "The company has to try to find a way to fund the operation of storage, bandwidth, duplicates, file sharing, security measures – all that stuff."

However the expert said that imposing charges for a function that had earlier required no payment, and members had been prompted to utilize as such, may appear as a "bait and switch" for certain individuals.

"Changing the rules after people have created this huge digital archive seems unfair," he explained. For numerous users, he stated, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're personal mementos."

The sentiment was reflected by those leaving unfavorable comments, with one person labeling their archived media "the most precious thing to me".

"The stored media includes every aspect of my experiences within them from celebrations of new family members' births, mourning of passed loved ones, times spent with loved ones, [and] my entire youth," they expressed.

Academic Insight

An academic expert, a university scholar at a Dutch institution in the the Low Countries, explained that the platform's decision shows the implications of for-profit services being used to archive meaningful individual recordings.

"They benefit from this confidence, mutual reliance, and expectation of continuous entry, which even motivates certain individuals to remain with the platform or persist with the feature in order to review their archive," she explained to journalists. "But these are not benevolent guardians of individual recollection."