>GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps: https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play

Sandboxed-Google-Play is not encouraged or promoted. It is suggested if you need apps only accessible via Google Play or needing Google services purely because it provides the maximum compatibility. GrapheneOS have always said that Android's strnegth is a large wealth of open source apps (many of which do not need Google). If more everyday apps (media streaming, taxi, food delivery & rewards, banking, government, social media) did not depend on Google, GrapheneOS would not spend the time, resources and effort that they have on sandboxed-google-play.

> I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software.

microG still forwards the requests to the Google servers. Not sure what you mean by "tracking APIs"? microG is a reverse-engineered, open source implementation of a subset of Play Services, right? It's not obviously a better option: for instance, some things that are supported in Play Services are not supported in microG, and microG sometimes breaks (because of changes in the API).

> allows you to select alternative Location Providers

GOS does that, too.

> I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps

I don't get that. It does not encourage them to install Play Services, it makes it available. Because for many (most?) users, it is important to have it.

I am not sure what you are trying to say: is your opinion that there is no point in using an alternative OS (like GOS, /e/OS, LineageOS, IodeOS, ...) or are you trying to say that GOS is not the most secure/private alternative OS?