🔗 Share this article

"Half of my experiences is saved on Snapchat, and unexpectedly they want us to fork out money for it."

Poor ratings and a feeling of inequity have taken over digital forums since the app became the most recent digital platform to introduce fees for a feature that people previously accessed for at no cost.

The company behind Snapchat announced in the fall that it would require payment from users if they have more than five gigabytes of archived photos and recordings stored as Snapchat Memories.

For many, these past uploads serve as a glimpse into earlier times – prompting some to blast the corporation of "profit-driven motives" in comments on social media and negative reviews on digital storefronts.

Alternative Options

The company has compared its premium storage tiers to those offered by tech giants for smartphones.

And as an alternative for those who don't want to pay, subscribers can download their archived media – which for some span large volumes – to their device.

The company indicated that only a minority of members would be influenced by the updated terms.

They recognized that it was "always challenging to shift from accessing content at no charge to subscribing to it" – but suggested it would be "worth the cost" for users.

Numerous opposing the move online clearly oppose this view.

Widespread Discontent

A web-based protest dubbed the charge a "archival levy", with participants describing it "Orwellian" and "ridiculous" – while an individual threatened to abandon the platform again.

In parallel, in a negative evaluation on the Google Play store, a person calling themselves an online commenter said it felt "deeply unfair".

"Based on my understanding of millennials, the majority have years worth of recorded experiences on the platform," they said. "The vast majority only kept the app mainly for that reason. 5GB is absolutely nothing when you have extensive collections of memories... Farewell Snapchat."

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

"I made up my mind that I needed to download all my memories as soon as I could," she explained. "The vast majority of my teenage years have been documented through my archived posts, all of the pictures in there are extremely valuable to me."

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

Uncertain Costs

The company has not yet said how much subscription tiers would require in the UK – only that they are part of a "gradual global rollout".

However 23-year-old Amber Daley, who also lives in London, commented in a upload on the video service that she would be "upset" by these fees.

She noted that the app had become "integrated into daily routine" since she began accessing it in several years ago.

Despite admitting she recognized the app needed to generate revenue, Amber proposed that the archival function holds greater significance than the company may have anticipated.

"In my opinion it's quite an unfair step to demand payment from your customers who have been loyal and devoted," she explained. "These aren't just called Memories, these are our real-life recollections."

Professional Insight

Companies choosing to require payment from customers for a function that was once complimentary is a common practice, and numerous people cover the cost of options like iCloud and Google Drive to preserve their media content from their handset.

The reality of storing data in the online servers – which some in the digital field like to refer to as merely "a remote system" – is that it involves expenses.

"Managing trillions of Memories on the service requires significant resources," social media consultant an industry analyst commented. "Snapchat has to attempt to identify a method to cover the cost of archiving, network usage, back-ups, content delivery, data protection – all that stuff."

But the consultant said that requiring payment for a function that had once been complimentary, and subscribers had been prompted to utilize as such, may seem like a "bait and switch" for certain individuals.

"Moving the goalposts after users have built this extensive stored content feels inappropriate," he said. And for many, he added, "Archived media exceeds mere information, they're sentimental records."

The feeling was shared by those posting critical reviews, with a user describing their archived media "the most precious thing to me".

"These archives contain each part of my experiences within them from joyful events like births, sad moments of loss, experiences shared with close ones, [and] my whole teenage years," they commented.

Research Perspective

A postdoctoral researcher, a research fellow at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, said that the platform's decision shows the consequences of commercial platforms being used to archive meaningful individual recordings.

"They benefit from this trust, mutual reliance, and presumption of never-ending access, which even motivates certain individuals to continue using the app or persist with the feature in order to review their stored media," she explained to the BBC. "But these are not altruistic protectors of individual recollection."