🔗 Share this article

"Half of my life is saved on the platform, and suddenly they demand us to cover the cost for it."

One-star reviews and a sense of injustice have flooded digital forums since Snapchat emerged as the latest digital platform to start charging for a function that users previously enjoyed using for at no cost.

The app's parent company revealed in September that it would require payment from subscribers if they have more than five gigabytes of saved pictures and videos stored as Memories.

For many, these retro posts function as a portal to bygone days – driving some to accuse the company of "corporate greed" in messages on social media and negative reviews on Google and Apple's app stores.

Alternative Options

The company has likened its premium storage tiers to those offered by Apple and Google for smartphones.

For those seeking another option for those who don't want to pay, users can download their Memories – which for many people span large volumes – to their personal gadget.

The firm stated that only a limited group of subscribers would be influenced by the changes.

They recognized that it was "always challenging to shift from accessing content at no charge to covering the expense" – but proposed it would be "a valuable investment" for users.

Many denouncing the move online seem to disagree.

User Backlash

A digital campaign called the cost a "memory tax", with commenters labeling it "bleak" and "absurd" – while one person promised never to use the application from now on.

In parallel, in a one-star review on the digital platform, a user calling themselves Natacha Jonsson said it felt "very unethical".

"As a member of that generation, many people have a long history of recorded experiences on the platform," they said. "Numerous users only continued using Snapchat mainly for that reason. Such limited storage is inadequate when you have years worth of moments... Bye Snap."

And, a London-based user, a university student journalism student in London, revealed on the video platform her plans to remove the platform.

"I concluded that I wanted to export all my archived media as immediately," she explained. "Nearly every part of my adolescence have been recorded through my archived posts, all of the photos in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"It just doesn't make sense to start charging individuals for a service that has been at no cost for a considerable period."

Uncertain Costs

The company has not yet said how much storage plans would be priced at in the Britain – only that they are part of a "phased international launch".

But a young adult Amber Daley, who is based in the capital, said in a video on the video service that she would be "distraught" by these fees.

She explained that the service had become "integrated into daily routine" since she began accessing it in 2014.

Despite admitting she understood the platform needed to earn income, Amber suggested that the archival function is more valuable than the company may have understood.

"I think it's a somewhat inequitable step to impose fees on your subscribers who have been consistent and engaged," she explained. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our real-life recollections."

Industry Perspective

Firms choosing to require payment from users for a service that was previously free is a common practice, and millions pay for platforms like digital backup services to save their media content from their mobile device.

The reality of archiving content in the online servers – which certain experts in the tech industry frequently call as merely "an external server" – is that it requires funding.

"Storing enormous quantities of archived media on the service demands considerable investment," online expert an industry analyst stated. "The company has to attempt to identify a approach to fund the operation of data retention, bandwidth, duplicates, content delivery, security measures – all that stuff."

But Mr Navarra indicated that introducing fees for a feature that had earlier required no payment, and users had been prompted to utilize as such, may seem like a "deceptive practice" for certain individuals.

"Altering the terms after individuals have created this massive online collection doesn't really sit right," he said. And for many, he added, "Memories aren't just data dumps, they're emotional artefacts."

The opinion was echoed by those leaving unfavorable comments, with a user labeling their saved images and clips "extremely valuable to me".

"The stored media includes each part of my life within them from celebrations of new family members' births, mourning of passed loved ones, times spent with loved ones, [and] my whole teenage years," they expressed.

Research Perspective

A postdoctoral researcher, a university scholar at an educational establishment in the Holland, stated that the company's action shows the consequences of business-oriented apps being used to save emotional private media.

"Platforms gain from this trust, connected relationship, and assumption of perpetual availability, which even encourages many people to remain with the platform or continue to use it in order to revisit their archive," she explained to journalists. "However these are not altruistic protectors of personal memory."