Indeed sad and a shame...but I can understand the "why"
It is inexcusable to "lie" to one's consumers. That is truly upsetting and I am glad to see truthful reporting on this.
So, how far does "twisting the truth" go until it becomes a lie?
Nowadays, with all the hype over and demand for "in-house" movements; along with the status of
watch makers being recognized as true "haute watch manufacturers",
the pressure is on the watch makers and Swiss conglomerates to find the limit
between twisting the truth about "in-house" and lying about it.
How much watch content must be "in-house" to enjoy that label? 100%?
Nowadays, maybe 80% is enough? Or maybe modifying and re-manufacturing movements is enough in the eyes of the watch makers to quality for "in house".
To be honest, and I am probably a minority opinion here, but if my watch continues to run
accurately year after year, I really don't care if it is "in-house" or "ETA".
But I don't want to pay the hefty price difference between a really, completely, totally manufactured "in-house"
movement, and a more mass-produced ETA movement. Paying for what I believe I am getting,
but not getting what I AM PAYING for is a real issue.
Maybe if there wasn't such a stigma nowadays with "ETA" vs. the hefty prices for and hype over "in-house",
and the additional pressure to make a profit at any cost, these kinds of lies, scandals, and half-truths wouldn't arise.