[thxbb12]

I never used Fuji, but I am surprised it still has those drawbacks, especially when it comes to autofocus, even my 5 years old EOSRP which is considered very basic model doesn't have those drawbacks.
I know you are happy with shallow DOF now, but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C. My suggestion, it's not the fast primes that you need on Fuji, sell them they will generate good money, and just keep ultrawide and macro lenses and continue using 2 systems just like what I do

AF for stills is ok.
It's mostly for video that it's mega annoying where it goes in and out of focus constantly which makes the video almost unwatchable.
Since I used the Sony, it made me realized how good Sony AF is. It's incredible. You probably don't realize how much better it is from your RP until experiencing it.

"but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C" : how can miss APS-C when it comes to large DOF? It doesn't make any sense. All I need to do to match APS-C is close my lens' aperture. I can always stop down a lens, but I can never open the aperture more than is physically possible. If if want to match the DOF I'd get at f5.6 with APS-C, all I need to do it to use f8 or f9 on FF. How difficult is this?
So no, a small format doesn't bring any DOF advantage, it's the opposite. Funnily enough it's something I read online from time to time, yet it doesn't make any sense.

---

I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.

Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".

e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.

The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't.  And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.

I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.

Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point.  I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.

Indeed, Fuji has been very clever in their marketing strategy.
I like what Fuji did originally with their X-System. It was quite a unique proposition. However, times have changed.
I still think it's a good system for prime shooters. However, for zoom shooters it's a different story. Unless you use long lenses (zooms) and primes, I'm not convinced Fuji is such a great system.
Their zooms are really not that great and their pro line is really bulky to the point of being larger than FF for equivalent outputs.

Yes, Sony glass can be extremely good and clinical (and very pricey). On the other hand, one can buy very affordable lenses that are actually very descent. Or dirt cheap glass that not even half-bad! Or very compact lenses too. For instance, I currently own the Tamron 28-200 but I'd like a wide-angle. I can buy a Viltrox 20mm f2.8 for almost nothing and it's tiny. There are quite a few cheapo lenses that are pretty descent. This is a strong selling point for the system as a whole IMO. No other manufacturer comes remotely close to this. The body is one thing but the most important is the lenses.

Sure for DOF you can go to f8 instead of f5.6 but would you use f32 ? so there's still some advantage, besides  remember a 10mm lens has significantly more DOF than a 16mm lens when both used at the same aperture, I use both APS-C and full frame and when I need DOF for ultrawide shots APS-C has its advantage, obviously if you need shallow DOF you should go elsewhere.
Also for macro you always have more magnification with APS-C because of the crop factor.
Of course full frame can replace APS-C and you don't have to use dual system, but if you happen to have both like me, you will definitely find some advantages for APS-C especially for macro

You don't seem to understand equivalence (between sensor sizes).
f32 on fullframe is equivalent to f21 on APS-C. Would you use f21 on APS-C?

Again, there is zero advantage to having more depth of field with APS-C (vs FF) as you can always match the larger depth of field with FF by stepping down more.

When considering equivalent systems, you must take in account aperture, ISO and focal length.
I remember Klaus had written an article on equivalence with examples, but it seems the article is gone :-( 
I recommend you read the DPR article on the same subject here to help you understand it better: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Again, there is no inherent advantage to APS-C or smaller formats for macro photography.
The only reason why you might think APS-C is more interesting is because there is no equivalent lens available for FF. 
For instance a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on APS-C would be equivalent to a 153mm f4.3 on FF. So yes, there is no such lens available for FF (yet) ;-) But this has nothing to do with sensor size.