🔗 Share this article

"Half of my personal history is saved on this app, and suddenly they want us to fork out money for it."

Negative feedback and a perception of unfairness have flooded social media conversations since the app joined the latest digital platform to start charging for a service that people previously utilized for at no cost.

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

In the eyes of countless individuals, these retro posts serve as a window to the past – driving some to criticize the firm of "money-hungry tactics" in messages on social media and unfavorable reviews on Google and Apple's app stores.

Other Choices

The company has likened its subscription options to those offered by major companies for handsets.

And as an alternative for users unwilling to subscribe, members can download their saved content – which for some span tens of gigabytes – to their own hardware.

The firm stated that only a small number of subscribers would be influenced by the updated terms.

The company admitted that it was "never easy to transition from receiving a service for free to paying for it" – but suggested it would be "a valuable investment" for users.

A significant number of criticising the decision via digital channels clearly oppose this view.

Public Outcry

A web-based protest dubbed the cost a "archival levy", with commenters labeling it "Orwellian" and "absurd" – while a user vowed to abandon the platform from now on.

At the same time, in a poor rating on the app marketplace, a user named Natacha Jonsson said it felt "deeply unfair".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, the majority have a long history of memories on the platform," they commented. "And most of us only kept the app primarily for that reason. 5GB is absolutely nothing when you have a long timeline of memories... Bye Snap."

Additionally, a London-based user, a university student journalism student in the UK capital, shared on a social network her plans to delete the application.

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

"This seems illogical to introduce fees users for a feature that has been complimentary for a considerable period."

Unknown Fees

Snapchat has not disclosed how much storage plans would be priced at in the UK – only that they are part of a "gradual global rollout".

However a young adult another user, who also lives in the capital, stated in a video on the video service that she would be "devastated" by these fees.

Amber explained that the service had become "a part of everyday life" since she first joined in 2014.

While she said she accepted the service needed to generate revenue, the user indicated that the saved content option holds greater significance than the firm may have realized.

"In my opinion it's quite an unfair decision to charge your subscribers who have been loyal and devoted," she commented. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our genuine personal moments."

Expert Analysis

Businesses deciding to charge from subscribers for a function that was once complimentary is a common practice, and countless individuals cover the cost of platforms like iCloud and Google Drive to preserve their images and clips from their handset.

The reality of archiving content in the cloud – which certain experts in the digital field frequently call as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it involves expenses.

"Managing vast amounts of saved content on the service isn't a trivial amount," online expert a tech commentator commented. "The company has to try to find a approach to offset the expenses of storage, bandwidth, copies, media distribution, data protection – the entire process."

But the expert indicated that introducing fees for a feature that had previously been free, and subscribers had been prompted to utilize as such, may feel like a "deceptive practice" for many people.

"Altering the terms after people have created this extensive stored content doesn't really sit right," he noted. In the view of countless individuals, he stated, "Memories aren't just data dumps, they're emotional artefacts."

The opinion was reflected by those leaving critical reviews, with an individual calling their archived media "extremely valuable to me".

"[Memories] have every aspect of my life within them from happy occasions such as new additions, sad moments of loss, experiences shared with close ones, [and] my whole teenage years," they commented.

Expert Analysis

A postdoctoral researcher, a postdoctoral researcher at Utrecht University in the the Low Countries, stated that the platform's decision shows the consequences of for-profit services being used to store sentimental personal content.

"They benefit from this trust, connected relationship, and presumption of never-ending access, which even incentivises many people to stay on the service or persist with the feature in order to scroll back through their saved content," she explained to the media. "Yet these are not altruistic protectors of individual recollection."