Also (western) journalists love stories about 3M deaths, surveillance apps or fake news, much more than success stories.
So yes, apps had no chance to save lives. Korea or Singapore show they could have, but we didn't let them.
Of course, saying "it seems to work in China" is the surest way to having a course of action shot down as unacceptable whatever its actual merits...
Covid still isn't in control in South Korea. (Singapore maybe, but that relied on their society being structured in a way that wouldn't be politically acceptable elsewhere. If you take a look at the infection rate in their worker dorms, and realise those people would be living amongst the rest of the community in equally crowded housing and shopping at the same stores in Western countries - just like they were in Singapore until they were forced into dorms so actual citizens didn't have to look at them - and that those infections weren't even counted as "community cases" there...)
I'm also under the impression that their interventions have been less drastic than the US (but I haven't been following closely).
Are we really stuck thinking that a thing has to be a complete solution to be worth doing? It seems clear enough to me that identifying clusters and helping infected people isolate both have a big positive impact (both in disease control and in keeping things more open). Apps can be a piece of that puzzle.
Anytime someone tests positive, the government notifies everyone who was in the same building in the past two weeks, and testing is mandatory.