🔗 Share this article

"A significant portion of my personal history is archived on this app, and suddenly they expect us to fork out money for it."

One-star ratings and a feeling of unfairness have flooded social media conversations since Snapchat became the newest technology company to start charging for a function that individuals previously accessed for without payment.

The company behind Snapchat announced in last month that it would require payment from subscribers if they have exceeding five GB of saved images and recordings stored as the Memories feature.

In the eyes of countless individuals, these old snaps act as a glimpse into earlier times – prompting some to blast the firm of "corporate greed" in posts on social media and negative reviews on digital storefronts.

Alternative Options

The company has equated its paid storage plans to those provided by tech giants for smartphones.

And as an alternative for individuals avoiding fees, users may save their Memories – which for many people span significant data – to their device.

Snap mentioned that only a limited group of subscribers would be impacted by the updated terms.

The company admitted that it was "always challenging to transition from receiving a service for free to paying for it" – but implied it would be "justified by the benefits" for subscribers.

Numerous criticising the change on the internet clearly oppose this view.

User Backlash

A web-based protest called the fee a "memory tax", with commenters calling it "bleak" and "absurd" – while one person threatened to quit the application again.

In parallel, in a poor review on the app marketplace, a person identifying as an online commenter said it felt "very unethical".

"If I know millennials right, the majority have extensive archives of recorded experiences on Snapchat," they wrote. "The vast majority only remained on the platform mainly for this purpose. 5GB is absolutely nothing when you have a long timeline of recordings... Bye Snap."

Additionally, Guste Ven, a 20-year-old media studies major in a major city, posted on the video platform her plans to uninstall the platform.

"I made up my mind that I had to save all my memories as soon as I could," she stated. "Nearly every part of my adolescence have been captured through my saved snaps, all of the images in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"It just doesn't make sense to start charging individuals for a service that has been free for a considerable period."

Unknown Fees

Snapchat has not yet said how much subscription tiers would cost in the United Kingdom – only that they are part of a "slow worldwide introduction".

Yet 23-year-old another user, who also lives in London, commented in a video on the video service that she would be "devastated" by these fees.

She mentioned that the app had become "a part of everyday life" since she began accessing it in the past.

Although she acknowledged she accepted the service needed to make money, the user proposed that the saved content option is more valuable than the company may have anticipated.

"Personally, I believe it's a somewhat inequitable decision to impose fees on your customers who have been faithful and dedicated," she commented. "This feature is more than a name, these are our genuine personal moments."

Industry Perspective

Businesses deciding to charge from subscribers for a service that was once complimentary is nothing new, and countless individuals cover the cost of services like digital backup services to preserve their photos and videos from their smartphone.

The truth of archiving content in the cloud – which various commentators in the tech industry like to refer to as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it requires funding.

"Storing vast amounts of saved content on the service requires significant resources," online expert a tech commentator commented. "Snapchat has to try to find a approach to cover the cost of data retention, data transfer, back-ups, media distribution, encryption – the entire process."

However the consultant noted that requiring payment for a feature that had once been complimentary, and members had been encouraged to use as such, may appear as a "misleading tactic" for many people.

"Altering the terms after people have accumulated this huge digital archive doesn't really sit right," he noted. And for many, he added, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're personal mementos."

The opinion was echoed by those submitting critical reviews, with a user labeling their saved images and clips "extremely valuable to me".

"The stored media includes every aspect of my personal journey within them from happy occasions such as new additions, grieving for lost relatives, times spent with loved ones, [and] my whole teenage years," they wrote.

Research Perspective

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, stated that the platform's decision shows the ramifications of for-profit services being used to archive meaningful individual recordings.

"The companies profit from this confidence, mutual reliance, and presumption of never-ending access, which even motivates many people to remain with the platform or keep accessing it in order to scroll back through their saved content," she told the media. "But these are not charitable custodians of personal memory."