🔗 Share this article

"A significant portion of my personal history is stored on the platform, and unexpectedly they want us to pay for it."

One-star reviews and a sense of inequity have flooded online discussion since the app emerged as the most recent digital platform to start charging for a function that users previously accessed for at no cost.

Snap revealed in last month that it would start charging users if they have over five gigabytes worth of previously shared photos and videos stored as Snapchat Memories.

For many, these past uploads serve as a window to the past – driving some to blast the firm of "corporate greed" in comments on social media and unfavorable feedback on mobile app marketplaces.

Other Choices

Snap has equated its premium storage tiers to those offered by major companies for mobile devices.

As another possibility for users unwilling to subscribe, subscribers can download their saved content – which for some amount to tens of gigabytes – to their personal gadget.

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

It also acknowledged that it was "always challenging to shift from receiving a service for free to subscribing to it" – but proposed it would be "justified by the benefits" for users.

A significant number of criticising the change on the internet appear unconvinced.

Widespread Discontent

A web-based protest dubbed the cost a "archival levy", with participants calling it "bleak" and "ridiculous" – while one person vowed to abandon the platform in the future.

In parallel, in a negative review on the Google Play store, a person calling themselves Natacha Jonsson said it felt "morally questionable".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, many people have extensive archives of recorded experiences on the platform," they said. "Numerous users only remained on the platform mostly for that feature. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have extensive collections of memories... Goodbye to the app."

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

"I decided that I had to save all my memories as quickly as possible," she stated. "Nearly every part of my adolescence have been documented through my Snapchat memories, all of the images in there are extremely valuable to me."

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

Unknown Fees

Snapchat has yet to announce how much storage plans would require in the UK – only that they are part of a "gradual global rollout".

But a London resident Amber Daley, who also lives in the city, said in a post on the social platform that she would be "upset" by the new costs.

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

Although she acknowledged she accepted the app needed to earn income, she proposed that the Memories feature holds greater significance than the firm may have understood.

"I think it's a rather unjust step to demand payment from your subscribers who have been faithful and dedicated," she commented. "This feature is more than a name, these are our actual memories."

Expert Analysis

Companies choosing to require payment from users for a function that was once complimentary is a common practice, and numerous people pay for services like cloud storage solutions to save their photos and videos from their handset.

The truth of archiving content in the online servers – which various commentators in the tech industry like to refer to as simply "an external server" – is that it involves expenses.

"Managing enormous quantities of Memories on Snapchat requires significant resources," online expert a tech commentator commented. "Snapchat has to seek out a way to offset the expenses of storage, bandwidth, copies, file sharing, data protection – all that stuff."

Yet the consultant indicated that imposing charges for a function that had earlier required no payment, and subscribers had been prompted to utilize as such, may seem like a "deceptive practice" for many people.

"Altering the terms after users have created this extensive stored content seems unfair," he explained. And for many, he stated, "Saved content is more than stored files, they're sentimental records."

The opinion was reflected by those leaving unfavorable comments, with an individual labeling their archived media "deeply important to me".

"[Memories] have all elements of my life within them from happy occasions such as new additions, grieving for lost relatives, experiences shared with close ones, [and] my complete adolescence," they wrote.

Expert Analysis

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at an educational establishment in the the Low Countries, stated that the company's action shows the ramifications of commercial platforms being used to store meaningful individual recordings.

"They benefit from this trust, connected relationship, and assumption of perpetual availability, which even incentivises certain individuals to remain with the platform or continue to use it in order to review their stored media," she told the BBC. "Yet these are not altruistic protectors of personal memory."