Naiyas

CheeseFreeze said:

quench said:

So Epic agreed to the contract because they know Apple has an enormous base of customers. Then epic got greedy and thought they could be dishonorable and cheat the company (Apple) that helped them become a worldwide sensation.
epic you suck for your dishonesty, lying to customers when you blamed Apple for the situation that you forced onto itself, stealing from the company that made you extremely wealthy. 

I don’t care what quality games you produce, I will not support a greedy, lying, stealing company ever again.
I'm done with you epic!

And you don’t think Apple is greedy? Charging 500% of the retail price for storage in your new iMac, or soldering the SSD in your motherboard because then you’ll buy a new iMac sooner when it dies? And still 30% in 2020 on app purchases, while the vast majority of developers are drowning and disappearing in the offerings of millions of apps? 

This is not 2009 when your app actually was discoverable on the App Store. 30% for essentially hosting your game and not getting any service out of Apple for anything else (except MAYBE getting your game on their release stream - discoverable for what, like, 3 days maybe?), and then having to PAY for advertisements on the App Store on top the 30%... That is killing developers. 

Do you know how much devs are SPENDING and risking before that game launches? Do you have any idea about the economics of it all? I guess you don’t. 

Well, I do, I have released over 40 games on the App Store - both licensed IP’s and games for marketing purposes, some successful and some not, and I can tell you the App Store today is a shit show because of the sheer amount of content. 

Top tier earners keep earning because they BUY their users with their earnings. Hundreds thousands per day. You have no chance of turning the tides in your favor. It’s a mess.

Epic is one of the exceptions - they are incredibly successful - but they are fighting the PRINCIPLE here and that’s not just for themselves. They don’t need Apple’s iOS revenue. They want CHANGE. Their philosophy in revenue sharing with developers for their own tools is much more developer friendly. They are much more values driven here. Apple is in fact the greedy one here. It’s not a coincidence they reaches a 2 trillion market cap here!

There’s several examples of Apple being greedy.
Stop defending Apple like it’s some exception to the rule and that it’s some kind of amazing company that is out there to help developers rich. They don’t care about that. They care about their own valuation.    

As a developer myself, admittedly not for games, I’m very familiar with the problems the App Store has for developers, and the thousands of dollars it takes to build an app that will attract buyers. But to promote that this “battle” between Epic and Apple will help us is disingenuous.

1. Epic want to have their own store on iOS.
2. Epic want to have their own store on iPadOS.
3. Epic want to have their own store on tvOS.

Thats it.

Rayz2016 said:

However, I do have a problem with this:

Cook denied that certain larger developers are favored over others.

If Amazon didn't have to pay a 30% cut in its first year on the app store, then that sounds a lot like favouring a larger developer over a smaller one.

I don't take issue with that when you take into consideration the terms fo the agreement.

Amazon Prime Video (which is what I gather this deal was about) provided a feed of their entire content library to the Apple TV service as a condition of obtaining a 15% fee rather than 30%. If I recall from the keynote that this service was originally announced no pricing was announced or implied and so the "deal" sits outside of the general 30% App Store terms.

Effectively, Apple was prepared to pay (or rebate) Amazon 50% of the 30% fee in the first year to get the Amazon Prime Video content on their TV service. What developer can claim a volume of content like that as a negotiation point? On a financial point, I'll bet that in Apple's accounts, Amazon's fee was accrued at 30% with the 50% rebate in the associated rebates line, in much the same way as happens across almost every business.

GeorgeBMac said:

Naiyas said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Naiyas said:

GeorgeBMac said:

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Privacy and security is good.

But the question here is:   How many people will you kill protecting your privacy?   How many others have to die for the sake of your privacy?     1?  10?   100?

But, it's not just lives.   It's the economy stupid!   Without testing and contact tracing the only recourse is either to maintain social distancing or let the virus run rampant.  And, either of those two options will kill the economy.

So, effective tracing and effective contact tracing will not only save lives but enable the economy to recover.

So, F your privacy!

Singapore was the poster child for how to effectively control the spread. Lots of testing and the personally identifiable contact tracing you are suggesting, where the names and addresses of those infected were available rather than private and anonymized, were some of the essential tools...

But have you been following the latest? From 10 days ago:
https://www.cnet.com/news/singapore-had-the-coronavirus-under-control-now-it-is-locking-down-the-country/

"The city-state drew international praise for its ability to blunt the spread of COVID-19 while avoiding some of the drastic containment measures seen in countries like China, Italy and Spain. But Singapore's lauded response has come into question. Last week, it enforced a partial lockdown as it struggles to contain a sharp rise in coronavirus cases. 

As part of Singapore's stricter "circuit breaker" measures, it shuttered most workplaces last Tuesday. The following day, school closures went into effect for at least a month, shifting students to "full home-based learning." The government has also banned public and private social gatherings of any size, meaning residents who entertain guests face six months of jail time or a fine of up to $7,000."

"The move underscores the risks that the coronavirus poses -- even after a country has seemingly taken the necessary steps to protect itself. The semi-lockdown came after Singapore witnessed an explosion of confirmed coronavirus cases, from 106 infections on March 1 to 1,000 on April 1. Those figures indicate most infections were transmitted locally and that a growing number of cases have no known links to confirmed patients. "

So now they're sliding back a bit towards social distancing and clamping down on large parts of their society. Just when you think it's safe to get back in water you realize things are not quite so clear as you thought they were.

But France is not like Singapore, which is not like Australia, which is not like Norway, which is not like Montana, which is not like Florida. What is essential one place may be under or overkill in another. The US is almost like 50 separate countries with individual economies and Covid-19 impact, much as France has its own challenges apart from some of the rest of the EU and definitely the world at wide. 

France may want, even need, to do things differently from the US, or Singapore, or Canada, or New York City. If they can use what Apple and Google have designed then great, and I doubt their citizen's in general would object to better privacy, but those two techs should not be required to modify how the system works to appease them and affect every other community and country in the world perhaps negatively.  My personal opinion of course.

Yeh, some were holding Singapore up as a poster child.   And they they did do some good things -- just not enough of them.

They ignored the fact that they are dependent on a large migrant population that they house in dormitory conditions that are incubators for the virus.  

As for each country, state or county having "different needs":  the virus doesn't care and doesn't change.   It's the same virus in Kyokuk Iowa as it is New York city.

As long as we have no herd immunity, vaccine or effective treatment there is only one solution:   prevent the spread of infections.   You can do that by shutting everything down and telling people to hide in their houses.   But at some point more efficient measures are needed and no matter how you cut it that comes down to getting the infectious people off of our streets and out of our stores.   And, there is only one way to do that:   Identify the infectious as quickly as possible, then identify those that they may have infected and check them too.  Then quarantine the infectious in as humane a way as possible till they are no longer a danger to society.

The only differences are in political maneuvering rather than basic science.

Unfortunately I don't think you can discount the differences in each country as simply "political manoeuvring". Yes the way the virus spread is pretty primal and basic at its core which necessitates the need for mass track and trace, BUT you simply cannot discount the fact that each collective of people will respond in different ways to the methods used to limit the spread and for how long they will be happy to live under these methods. Democratic societies generally value the freedoms they live with daily over those who have never really lived with them. Consequently, the withdrawal of may of these freedoms for the sake of the pandemic will be accepted for differing periods of time. It is not politics that determines this acceptance, it is the very people of the country that determines it and this acceptance will vary dramatically from country to country via a combination of factors. Every country needs to approach this in a way that is accepted by their respective populace otherwise it just won't work, no matter what the "basic science" of it may be. As is clearly apparent in the variety of symptoms and results - there is no such thing as an average person nor a one size fits all solution.

There are effectively two strategies to deal with this current virus: Herd Immunity and Treatment. This is because the virus is far too widespread in most countries to be able to control via a "Contain" only strategy. Track and trace is critically important for "Contain", but of less importance for the other two with the exception of the management of patient flows into health systems for treatment. The simple fact we have resorted to mass lockdowns shows that the current track and trace infrastructure is not able to cope with this virus and the ability for any government to "prevent the spread of infections" for the sort of time needed to allow the virus to burn itself out is not a viable solution.

I am getting tired of people using the term "herd immunity" as if it is not a solution yet then go on to say that a vaccine is the solution. Well I have news for everyone, use of vaccines is the very definition of "herd immunity"! Immunity can be built up in a population naturally - via infection and treatment - and/or man-made - via a vaccine. The end result is essentially the same; the reduction of the R0 factor of a given infection. What we DO NOT KNOW right now is if immunity is developed naturally and if so for how long. We won't know for quite some time as more data is needed and in this instance, more data equals more infected people.

"you simply cannot discount the fact that each collective of people will respond in different ways to the methods used to limit the spread"

Nah!  People respond mostly based on the information they are given.   Here in the U.S. right wing propaganda followed by our president inciting the insurrection of armed militias storming local governments in order to cast blame for his failures onto others and to try to save his upcoming election.  Shameful!

"The simple fact we have resorted to mass lockdowns shows that the current track and trace infrastructure is not able to cope with this virus"

Again, Nah!   In the U.S. it was not that "track and trace" were ineffective.   It was and is that track and trace have never been implemented.   Part of that problem is that its prerequisite of testing was totally, 100% bungled and is still being bungled.   But then, assuming we ever get the testing debacle straightened out, tracking and tracing the infectious to get them off the streets is becoming mired in the same political and propaganda bog mentioned above.

"What we DO NOT KNOW right now is if immunity is developed naturally and if so for how long."

That is true.  But it also points to the multiple failures of our public health agencies.   What used to be gold standard, world class agencies have been reduced by 20 years of limited, small government attacks to empty shells that can't even copy a test that was handed to them!   In this case, they have known about this virus for 5 months now but still know almost nothing about it.

The richest, most powerful, most advanced nation on earth completely failed in its management of this crisis -- and continues to fail with its leader telling people to ingest bleach to sterilize their lungs.   Other countries with far fewer resources have successfully managed the identical crisis in their own countries.  We need to study them and recognize what they did to succeed and what we did to fail.

"People respond mostly based on the information they are given."
I think you give too much credit to the vast majority of people as regardless of the information given most will eventually revert to primal. If we take the plethora of countries in Europe then there is a variety of responses required from full police enforcement to no police action for lockdowns and even some that are doing track and trace. I can't speak for the US, but my point is 100% valid that different countries (collectives of people) will respond in the different ways.

"It was and is track and trace have never been implemented."
Again, I am not in the US as my point is not single country focused. Track and trace was widely implemented by many countries in Europe but the number of cases became too great to effectively continue this strategy. I do not disagree that it is an effective method with low infection counts, but once the R0 starts to increase beyond 2 in a population then the effectiveness of track and trace without appropriate infrastructure becomes impossible - hence the shift to mass lockdowns. By appropriate infrastructure I generally mean two things: rapid and accurate testing; and process and systems in place to handle the volumes required. On the RAPID testing front (I mean minutes not hours) this just didn't exist until late February, and even then was only available in low numbers and the accuracy was unknown at that time. Even now, many of the tests being used have a false rate that is high - take Germany as an example which despite massive testing is still having infections grow.

"points to multiple failures of our public health agencies."
It's easy to point the finger of blame but the solution isn't always more spending. Yes, I would agree that underfunding has potentially been an issue, but even the best funded can be crippled by poor management. The rot is not recent either, it has been decades in the making. However, where I disagree is that after only 5 months (and really for the west it is more like 3.5 months) to know as much as is currently known about this virus is incredible. Only 4-5 years ago, to know as much as is currently known would be a multi-year venture and to get prototype vaccines would be a decade or more. It's easy to be negative, but the advances in this area with many government's R&D tax regimes has been far greater than you think. It cannot be done at a flick of switch.

"...successfully managed the identical crisis in their own countries."
Thank you for undermining yourself regarding different responses in different countries, BUT don't count the chickens before they have hatched. Many of the countries I'm sure you are referring to are seeing additional outbreaks, so it is not over. Many others are not reporting the real position to the WHO as the numbers at this level are a political fight for international investment. In addition, some of these countries locked down areas and quarantined people through police action very early on. This kind of police state / oppressive action is one that would be far more difficult to justify in other countries. The only reason we look wider now for differences is because of hindsight. Can you imagine the massive public outcry for such draconian action if the outbreak never got this bad - even though the science would say the measures worked? The "prove it" brigade would be on the other side arguing that it was all an overreaction. There are no winners.

As for the US president's comments... he was elected by the people via the US election system so you get your chance to remove him in November. It is not for me to comment beyond that.

An on topic comment though... track and trace technology needs to improve dramatically but also not to the detriment of long term privacy. Once we give up our personal privacy we have given up life as we know it. The reason this is so important is that the same sort of arguments were used in 1930's Germany. We simply must learn the lessons of the past because every well meaning action can also be turned around and used for something terrible.

No, the far right and, to a lesser extent, the far left is mostly influenced by propaganda -- not some undefined "primal" instinct.   Unfortunately, they are so brainwashed they can't tell the difference between fact and fiction -- or care.

No, testing and tracing were NOT "widely implemented".   Korea did and managed the virus well.  Italy chose the opposite route and became an epicenter for the virus to spread -- including to New York.

Yes, you are right.  Throwing money doesn't solve problems.   But U.S. health agencies working effectively can -- just as they used to before 20 years of the "limited government" mantra devastated them.  It's a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy:  the hard right contends all government is evil and incompetent -- and then proceeds to make it so.

And sorry, but the virus in, for instance, China and S. Korea and elsewhere has been effectively controlled.  There is no resurgence there -- except for imported cases which they are now responding to.

We will agree to disagree on many fronts it seems which is the whole point of having an opinion and discussing it.

On your latter point, I think you need to get some contacts in China rather than read the publicly available figures or press. Some of my family live there and they are well aware all is not what is reported externally. China do not have "control" and have lied (and continue to lie) outright about the real spread and volume of cases and deaths there. Not a good example to draw on.

South Korea and Singapore are about the only two real examples anyone can and should reliably point at. Both are effectively police states as anyone who has lived in them for any length of time can tell you. And as I originally said in my post, it is far easier to control anything and everything if you are already such a regime. Is that the sort of government we all want to live under? I highly doubt it.

GeorgeBMac said:

Naiyas said:

GeorgeBMac said:

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Privacy and security is good.

But the question here is:   How many people will you kill protecting your privacy?   How many others have to die for the sake of your privacy?     1?  10?   100?

But, it's not just lives.   It's the economy stupid!   Without testing and contact tracing the only recourse is either to maintain social distancing or let the virus run rampant.  And, either of those two options will kill the economy.

So, effective tracing and effective contact tracing will not only save lives but enable the economy to recover.

So, F your privacy!

Singapore was the poster child for how to effectively control the spread. Lots of testing and the personally identifiable contact tracing you are suggesting, where the names and addresses of those infected were available rather than private and anonymized, were some of the essential tools...

But have you been following the latest? From 10 days ago:
https://www.cnet.com/news/singapore-had-the-coronavirus-under-control-now-it-is-locking-down-the-country/

"The city-state drew international praise for its ability to blunt the spread of COVID-19 while avoiding some of the drastic containment measures seen in countries like China, Italy and Spain. But Singapore's lauded response has come into question. Last week, it enforced a partial lockdown as it struggles to contain a sharp rise in coronavirus cases. 

As part of Singapore's stricter "circuit breaker" measures, it shuttered most workplaces last Tuesday. The following day, school closures went into effect for at least a month, shifting students to "full home-based learning." The government has also banned public and private social gatherings of any size, meaning residents who entertain guests face six months of jail time or a fine of up to $7,000."

"The move underscores the risks that the coronavirus poses -- even after a country has seemingly taken the necessary steps to protect itself. The semi-lockdown came after Singapore witnessed an explosion of confirmed coronavirus cases, from 106 infections on March 1 to 1,000 on April 1. Those figures indicate most infections were transmitted locally and that a growing number of cases have no known links to confirmed patients. "

So now they're sliding back a bit towards social distancing and clamping down on large parts of their society. Just when you think it's safe to get back in water you realize things are not quite so clear as you thought they were.

But France is not like Singapore, which is not like Australia, which is not like Norway, which is not like Montana, which is not like Florida. What is essential one place may be under or overkill in another. The US is almost like 50 separate countries with individual economies and Covid-19 impact, much as France has its own challenges apart from some of the rest of the EU and definitely the world at wide. 

France may want, even need, to do things differently from the US, or Singapore, or Canada, or New York City. If they can use what Apple and Google have designed then great, and I doubt their citizen's in general would object to better privacy, but those two techs should not be required to modify how the system works to appease them and affect every other community and country in the world perhaps negatively.  My personal opinion of course.

Yeh, some were holding Singapore up as a poster child.   And they they did do some good things -- just not enough of them.

They ignored the fact that they are dependent on a large migrant population that they house in dormitory conditions that are incubators for the virus.  

As for each country, state or county having "different needs":  the virus doesn't care and doesn't change.   It's the same virus in Kyokuk Iowa as it is New York city.

As long as we have no herd immunity, vaccine or effective treatment there is only one solution:   prevent the spread of infections.   You can do that by shutting everything down and telling people to hide in their houses.   But at some point more efficient measures are needed and no matter how you cut it that comes down to getting the infectious people off of our streets and out of our stores.   And, there is only one way to do that:   Identify the infectious as quickly as possible, then identify those that they may have infected and check them too.  Then quarantine the infectious in as humane a way as possible till they are no longer a danger to society.

The only differences are in political maneuvering rather than basic science.

Unfortunately I don't think you can discount the differences in each country as simply "political manoeuvring". Yes the way the virus spread is pretty primal and basic at its core which necessitates the need for mass track and trace, BUT you simply cannot discount the fact that each collective of people will respond in different ways to the methods used to limit the spread and for how long they will be happy to live under these methods. Democratic societies generally value the freedoms they live with daily over those who have never really lived with them. Consequently, the withdrawal of may of these freedoms for the sake of the pandemic will be accepted for differing periods of time. It is not politics that determines this acceptance, it is the very people of the country that determines it and this acceptance will vary dramatically from country to country via a combination of factors. Every country needs to approach this in a way that is accepted by their respective populace otherwise it just won't work, no matter what the "basic science" of it may be. As is clearly apparent in the variety of symptoms and results - there is no such thing as an average person nor a one size fits all solution.

There are effectively two strategies to deal with this current virus: Herd Immunity and Treatment. This is because the virus is far too widespread in most countries to be able to control via a "Contain" only strategy. Track and trace is critically important for "Contain", but of less importance for the other two with the exception of the management of patient flows into health systems for treatment. The simple fact we have resorted to mass lockdowns shows that the current track and trace infrastructure is not able to cope with this virus and the ability for any government to "prevent the spread of infections" for the sort of time needed to allow the virus to burn itself out is not a viable solution.

I am getting tired of people using the term "herd immunity" as if it is not a solution yet then go on to say that a vaccine is the solution. Well I have news for everyone, use of vaccines is the very definition of "herd immunity"! Immunity can be built up in a population naturally - via infection and treatment - and/or man-made - via a vaccine. The end result is essentially the same; the reduction of the R0 factor of a given infection. What we DO NOT KNOW right now is if immunity is developed naturally and if so for how long. We won't know for quite some time as more data is needed and in this instance, more data equals more infected people.

"you simply cannot discount the fact that each collective of people will respond in different ways to the methods used to limit the spread"

Nah!  People respond mostly based on the information they are given.   Here in the U.S. right wing propaganda followed by our president inciting the insurrection of armed militias storming local governments in order to cast blame for his failures onto others and to try to save his upcoming election.  Shameful!

"The simple fact we have resorted to mass lockdowns shows that the current track and trace infrastructure is not able to cope with this virus"

Again, Nah!   In the U.S. it was not that "track and trace" were ineffective.   It was and is that track and trace have never been implemented.   Part of that problem is that its prerequisite of testing was totally, 100% bungled and is still being bungled.   But then, assuming we ever get the testing debacle straightened out, tracking and tracing the infectious to get them off the streets is becoming mired in the same political and propaganda bog mentioned above.

"What we DO NOT KNOW right now is if immunity is developed naturally and if so for how long."

That is true.  But it also points to the multiple failures of our public health agencies.   What used to be gold standard, world class agencies have been reduced by 20 years of limited, small government attacks to empty shells that can't even copy a test that was handed to them!   In this case, they have known about this virus for 5 months now but still know almost nothing about it.

The richest, most powerful, most advanced nation on earth completely failed in its management of this crisis -- and continues to fail with its leader telling people to ingest bleach to sterilize their lungs.   Other countries with far fewer resources have successfully managed the identical crisis in their own countries.  We need to study them and recognize what they did to succeed and what we did to fail.

"People respond mostly based on the information they are given."
I think you give too much credit to the vast majority of people as regardless of the information given most will eventually revert to primal. If we take the plethora of countries in Europe then there is a variety of responses required from full police enforcement to no police action for lockdowns and even some that are doing track and trace. I can't speak for the US, but my point is 100% valid that different countries (collectives of people) will respond in the different ways.

"It was and is track and trace have never been implemented."
Again, I am not in the US as my point is not single country focused. Track and trace was widely implemented by many countries in Europe but the number of cases became too great to effectively continue this strategy. I do not disagree that it is an effective method with low infection counts, but once the R0 starts to increase beyond 2 in a population then the effectiveness of track and trace without appropriate infrastructure becomes impossible - hence the shift to mass lockdowns. By appropriate infrastructure I generally mean two things: rapid and accurate testing; and process and systems in place to handle the volumes required. On the RAPID testing front (I mean minutes not hours) this just didn't exist until late February, and even then was only available in low numbers and the accuracy was unknown at that time. Even now, many of the tests being used have a false rate that is high - take Germany as an example which despite massive testing is still having infections grow.

"points to multiple failures of our public health agencies."
It's easy to point the finger of blame but the solution isn't always more spending. Yes, I would agree that underfunding has potentially been an issue, but even the best funded can be crippled by poor management. The rot is not recent either, it has been decades in the making. However, where I disagree is that after only 5 months (and really for the west it is more like 3.5 months) to know as much as is currently known about this virus is incredible. Only 4-5 years ago, to know as much as is currently known would be a multi-year venture and to get prototype vaccines would be a decade or more. It's easy to be negative, but the advances in this area with many government's R&D tax regimes has been far greater than you think. It cannot be done at a flick of switch.

"...successfully managed the identical crisis in their own countries."
Thank you for undermining yourself regarding different responses in different countries, BUT don't count the chickens before they have hatched. Many of the countries I'm sure you are referring to are seeing additional outbreaks, so it is not over. Many others are not reporting the real position to the WHO as the numbers at this level are a political fight for international investment. In addition, some of these countries locked down areas and quarantined people through police action very early on. This kind of police state / oppressive action is one that would be far more difficult to justify in other countries. The only reason we look wider now for differences is because of hindsight. Can you imagine the massive public outcry for such draconian action if the outbreak never got this bad - even though the science would say the measures worked? The "prove it" brigade would be on the other side arguing that it was all an overreaction. There are no winners.

As for the US president's comments... he was elected by the people via the US election system so you get your chance to remove him in November. It is not for me to comment beyond that.

An on topic comment though... track and trace technology needs to improve dramatically but also not to the detriment of long term privacy. Once we give up our personal privacy we have given up life as we know it. The reason this is so important is that the same sort of arguments were used in 1930's Germany. We simply must learn the lessons of the past because every well meaning action can also be turned around and used for something terrible.

avon b7 said:

apple ][ said:

loopless said:

The same (imperfect) EU that has brought 75 years of peace and prosperity to Europe? Remember that WWII thing caused by a fractured Europe ?  The U.K. has comprehensively shot itself in the foot and damaged itself terribly economically for absurd  xenophobic reasons. Also to point out that  the U.K. has some of the most pervasive monitoring of its populace anywhere...it’s no beacon of privacy.

I would disagree. The EU has not brought peace. The EU itself will lead to further conflict in the future.

The USA has brought peace by having plenty of US troops and equipment stationed there ever since WWII. Russia would've walked all over the EU a long time ago if it wasn't for the protection of the US. The EU is incapable of protecting anything. The USA should pull everything out of Europe and let them fend for themselves, and we'll see how that works out. I'll grab the popcorn if and when that happens.

And the UK has not shot themselves in the foot. They were real smart to leave the EU, and it's about time that they did. The UK will be just fine on its own together with its allies. The UK does not need the EU one bit. They are a disgusting bunch, just go watch some of those videos from the European parliament. Nigel Farage owns them all.

This isn't really true. The U.S has always had a strategic interest in the EU. Without the various U.S military bases here, it would lose influence and that is what matters to the U.S government. Having Russia walking over the EU wouldn't do much for U.S influence. 

If the U.S were to pull out of the EU, the EU would simply fill the holes. It would have no other option. However, if the U.S were to do that, it would find itself in a serious pickle. 

75 years of peace has been through unification, not the U.S military presence. Integration and stability have brought prosperity to many nations and stability is one of the pillars of peace.

There have been challenges and there will be more and the EU has a stated goal of becoming independent on many levels. Notably in technology and there have always been moves promoting the creation of an EU wide defence force. Something the U.S clearly doesn't want to see become reality. Just like it didn't want the euro to become reality. Just like it doesn't want Huawei to have influence anywhere. The U.S wants its strategic influence tentacles in every pie. 

The U.K has a long track record of outsourcing sensitive data management to U.S companies and seeing things backfire. U.S foreign policy is backfiring across the globe as more and more nations push back. 

I doubt the specific issues detailed in this article have anything to do with its technological independence drive but the EU's desire to be in full control is possibly why it already has its own plans for contact tracing. 

You are probably both right to some degree because the truth often lies in the middle. But there are some simple misconceptions.

1. The EU has only existed since 1993 and was created via the ‘Maastricht’ Treaty on European Union. This transformed what was a largely successful trading bloc into a political body with a view to being some kind of federal governmental body. This also happens to be the same action that from this point there has been a significant increase and continuous growth across the entire EU in "euro-scepticism". One could almost say that this is the root cause of many of the EU's current problems and has resulted in a large increase in instability within may of the member countries and has by inference not brought peace.

2. Prior to 1993 there was no EU, it was actually the EEC - the European Economic Community - which had no political body or structure to speak of. It was primarily a trading body and was very successful at promoting free cross border trade between its membership. This was also the core reason for stability across the western continent. So the EEC brought peace and stability through open trade.

What is often overlooked by the pro-EU movement is the simple fact of the US military being stationed in Europe created a sphere of protection from Russian aggression which enabled Europe to rebuild its economy without the need to spend huge amounts on its military. This is very similar to what happened with Japan. Even today the European militaries are almost entirely dependent on US military assistance because they haven't had the necessary spending directed at them and there is no ability for them to "fill the holes" should the US pull out. Yes the EU may not have an option, but it would take years to do it and they would be impotent to protect against any aggressor in the interim, instead having to fall back on the French and UK nuclear deterrent.

Indeed, it would seem that the EU has undermined all the good work for peace and stability its predecessor, the EEC, created. Perhaps it will be looked back that the creation of the political body to create the EU was a step too far as it gave delusions of grandeur to may that hold its offices, though in truth only time will tell for sure what will happen.