🔗 Share this article

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

Poor reviews and a feeling of inequity have dominated social media conversations since the messaging service joined the latest digital platform to put a price tag on a service that individuals previously utilized for free.

The company behind Snapchat declared in September that it would require payment from subscribers if they have exceeding five gigabytes worth of saved pictures and recordings stored as Memories.

For many, these retro posts function as a window to the past – prompting some to criticize the firm of "corporate greed" in comments on digital networks and negative reviews on Google and Apple's app stores.

Available Solutions

Snapchat's parent has likened its paid storage plans to those offered by Apple and Google for handsets.

For those seeking another option for those who don't want to pay, members have the ability to export their archived media – which for many people cover significant data – to their own hardware.

The firm indicated that only a minority of users would be affected by the changes.

The company admitted that it was "always challenging to transition from receiving a service for free to subscribing to it" – but proposed it would be "a valuable investment" for users.

A significant number of opposing the change online clearly oppose this view.

Widespread Discontent

A web-based protest dubbed the cost a "memory tax", with participants describing it "bleak" and "outrageous" – while an individual promised to quit the app from now on.

Meanwhile, in a poor review on the app marketplace, a user calling themselves a pseudonymous user said it felt "deeply unfair".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, many people have years worth of memories on this service," they commented. "The vast majority only continued using Snapchat mainly for that feature. 5GB is absolutely nothing when you have years worth of memories... Bye Snap."

And, a London-based user, a university student media studies major in the UK capital, revealed on a social network her decision to delete the app.

"I concluded that I needed to download all my memories as soon as I could," she mentioned. "Nearly every part of my youth have been recorded through my archived posts, all of the pictures in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"The decision appears unreasonable to start charging users for a feature that has been free for such a long time."

Uncertain Costs

Snapchat has not disclosed how much storage plans would require in the UK – only that they are part of a "slow worldwide introduction".

But 23-year-old another user, who is based in London, said in a post on the video service that she would be "devastated" by such charges.

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

While she said she accepted the service needed to generate revenue, Amber suggested that the saved content option is more valuable than the firm may have realized.

"Personally, I believe it's a rather unjust move to charge your users who have been loyal and devoted," she commented. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our genuine personal moments."

Expert Analysis

Firms deciding to charge from subscribers for a function that was once complimentary is a frequent occurrence, and numerous people subscribe to platforms like cloud storage solutions to backup their media content from their mobile device.

The reality of archiving content in the cloud – which various commentators in the tech industry frequently call as simply "an external server" – is that it costs money.

"Hosting enormous quantities of Memories on the service demands considerable investment," online expert Matt Navarra explained. "The platform has to try to find a method to offset the expenses of storage, network usage, duplicates, media distribution, encryption – all that stuff."

Yet the expert noted that introducing fees for a function that had earlier required no payment, and members had been prompted to utilize as such, may seem like a "misleading tactic" for some.

"Moving the goalposts after users have accumulated this extensive stored content feels inappropriate," he explained. And for many, he stated, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're emotional artefacts."

The sentiment was reflected by those posting critical reviews, with a user calling their saved images and clips "the most precious thing to me".

"These archives contain every aspect of my experiences within them from happy occasions such as new additions, sad moments of loss, memories with friends/family, [and] my complete adolescence," they expressed.

Research Perspective

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at Utrecht University in the the Low Countries, said that Snapchat's move shows the consequences of for-profit services being used to store meaningful individual recordings.

"The companies profit from this trust, interdependence, and expectation of continuous entry, which even encourages certain individuals to stay on the service or continue to use it in order to scroll back through their stored media," she told journalists. "However these are not charitable custodians of individual recollection."