🔗 Share this article

"Half of my experiences is archived on the platform, and unexpectedly they want us to cover the cost for it."

Negative ratings and a feeling of inequity have taken over online discussion since Snapchat became the newest technology company to put a price tag on a feature that users previously accessed for without payment.

The app's parent company revealed in September that it would require payment from users if they have more than five gigabytes worth of previously shared images and recordings stored as Memories.

For many, these old snaps serve as a glimpse into earlier times – driving some to blast the company of "money-hungry tactics" in posts on digital networks and unfavorable feedback on digital storefronts.

Alternative Options

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

And as an alternative for those who don't want to pay, members may save their archived media – which for certain users amount to tens of gigabytes – to their personal gadget.

The firm stated that only a minority of users would be affected by the new policy.

The company admitted that it was "inherently difficult to transition from using a feature without cost to subscribing to it" – but suggested it would be "a valuable investment" for users.

A significant number of criticising the decision online clearly oppose this view.

User Backlash

An online petition dubbed the cost a "memory tax", with users calling it "dystopian" and "ridiculous" – while a user promised to quit the application from now on.

At the same time, in a one-star evaluation on the Google Play store, a individual named an online commenter said it felt "very unethical".

"As a member of that generation, most of us have a long history of memories on Snapchat," they said. "And most of us only remained on the platform mostly for that feature. Five gigabytes is insufficient when you have extensive collections of recordings... Goodbye to the app."

And, a journalism student, a 20-year-old aspiring reporter in a major city, shared on a social network her decision to delete the application.

"I made up my mind that I wanted to export all my saved content as quickly as possible," she mentioned. "The vast majority of my adolescence have been documented through my archived posts, all of the pictures in there are deeply meaningful to me."

"It just doesn't make sense to introduce fees individuals for something that has been complimentary for such a long time."

Unknown Fees

The company has not yet said how much premium options would require in the United Kingdom – only that they are part of a "slow worldwide introduction".

But 23-year-old another user, who is based in London, commented in a post on the video service that she would be "upset" by the new costs.

The user mentioned that the app had become "integrated into daily routine" since she first joined in the past.

Despite admitting she recognized the platform needed to earn income, Amber suggested that the saved content option means more to users than the firm may have realized.

"Personally, I believe it's a rather unjust step to charge your subscribers who have been consistent and engaged," she said. "This feature is more than a name, these are our actual memories."

Expert Analysis

Companies choosing to require payment from users for a feature that was once complimentary is a common practice, and numerous people cover the cost of services like iCloud and Google Drive to save their photos and videos from their mobile device.

The truth of archiving content in the digital storage – which certain experts in the tech industry frequently call as essentially "somebody else's computer" – is that it costs money.

"Storing trillions of saved content on the platform isn't a trivial amount," digital strategist an industry analyst commented. "The platform has to try to find a method to offset the expenses of archiving, network usage, copies, media distribution, security measures – the entire process."

Yet the consultant said that introducing fees for a function that had earlier required no payment, and users had been prompted to utilize as such, may appear as a "misleading tactic" for many people.

"Changing the rules after individuals have accumulated this massive online collection seems unfair," he explained. And for many, he added, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're personal mementos."

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

"The stored media includes all elements of my experiences within them from happy occasions such as new additions, mourning of passed loved ones, experiences shared with close ones, [and] my whole teenage years," they expressed.

Expert Analysis

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at Utrecht University in the Holland, said that the company's action demonstrates the implications of for-profit services being used to save emotional private media.

"Platforms gain from this confidence, interdependence, and expectation of continuous entry, which even incentivises some users to stay on the service or keep accessing it in order to revisit their stored media," she told journalists. "Yet these are not altruistic protectors of private remembrance."