🔗 Share this article

"Half of my personal history is archived on the platform, and now they demand us to pay for it."

One-star ratings and a feeling of unfairness have flooded social media conversations since the app became the latest digital platform to put a price tag on a function that people previously enjoyed using for free.

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

For many, these past uploads act as a portal to bygone days – prompting some to accuse the company of "money-hungry tactics" in posts on digital networks and unfavorable reviews on Google and Apple's app stores.

Other Choices

Snapchat's parent has equated its premium storage tiers to those provided by tech giants for smartphones.

And as an alternative for individuals avoiding fees, subscribers can download their Memories – which for many people amount to significant data – to their own hardware.

The company indicated that only a limited group of members would be affected by the changes.

The company admitted that it was "always challenging to transition from using a feature without cost to paying for it" – but suggested it would be "a valuable investment" for subscribers.

A significant number of opposing the move via digital channels clearly oppose this view.

User Backlash

A digital campaign dubbed the charge a "memory tax", with participants describing it "Orwellian" and "outrageous" – while an individual promised to quit the app from now on.

Meanwhile, in a negative evaluation on the Google Play store, a individual calling themselves an online commenter said it felt "deeply unfair".

"As a member of that generation, the majority have years worth of recorded experiences on Snapchat," they said. "And most of us only continued using Snapchat primarily for that reason. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have extensive collections of recordings... Farewell Snapchat."

And, a London-based user, a young adult media studies major in London, revealed on a social network her intention to remove the platform.

"I made up my mind that I had to save all my archived media as immediately," she mentioned. "Nearly every part of my teenage years have been captured through my saved snaps, all of the pictures in there are extremely valuable to me."

"This seems illogical to start charging individuals for something that has been complimentary for so many years."

Unspecified Pricing

The company has not yet said how much premium options would be priced at in the Britain – only that they are part of a "slow worldwide introduction".

However a young adult another user, who also lives in the city, commented in a post on the video service that she would be "upset" by the new costs.

The user explained that the service had become "integrated into daily routine" since she started using it in 2014.

While she said she understood the platform needed to earn income, Amber suggested that the archival function means more to users than the company may have understood.

"I think it's a rather unjust decision to charge your customers who have been faithful and dedicated," she said. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our genuine personal moments."

Industry Perspective

Firms choosing to require payment from subscribers for a feature that was previously free is a common practice, and countless individuals subscribe to platforms like digital backup services to preserve their photos and videos from their mobile device.

The reality of storing data in the cloud – which some in the digital field frequently call as merely "an external server" – is that it costs money.

"Hosting enormous quantities of saved content on the service requires significant resources," digital strategist a tech commentator commented. "The company has to seek out a way to fund the operation of data retention, bandwidth, back-ups, media distribution, data protection – the entire process."

Yet the consultant noted that introducing fees for a feature that had once been complimentary, and users had been prompted to utilize as such, may feel like a "deceptive practice" for some.

"Changing the rules after users have created this massive online collection doesn't really sit right," he said. In the view of countless individuals, he stated, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're personal mementos."

The feeling was shared by those posting critical reviews, with an individual describing their saved images and clips "the most precious thing to me".

"The stored media includes every aspect of my experiences within them from celebrations of new family members' births, sad moments of loss, memories with friends/family, [and] my whole teenage years," they expressed.

Research Perspective

Dr Taylor Annabell, a postdoctoral researcher at a Dutch institution in the Holland, stated that the company's action highlights the implications of for-profit services being used to save meaningful individual recordings.

"The companies profit from this trust, connected relationship, and presumption of never-ending access, which even encourages certain individuals to stay on the service or continue to use it in order to revisit their stored media," she told journalists. "Yet these are not charitable custodians of individual recollection."