I realise this distinction won't mean a thing to guys who don't care what's inside a watch, but for me (and others like me) who enjoying knowing that the entire design of a watch (both inside and out) is the work of that one manufacturer, then distinctions like this are important.

who take pleasure from the fact that a watch is built totally in-house know exactly what we're spending our hard-earned on

I think you guys are missing the point here. To use the car analogy from above, neither Porsche, or Ferrari make every single component in their cars. No auto manufacturer does this any more as they all collaborate and share common parts suppliers. Breitling is reaching into a parts bin just like Porsche and grabbing a few parts that have already been perfected and designing them into their car. Seems like Breitling is doing the same thing with this movement. The days of any modern manufacturer making every nut and bolt are long gone. As long as the warranty is good and you like the piece, I say carry on.

All in-house means is that Breilting built the movement, in their facility.

Please cite a source for that claim as it applies to watch movements.

The meaning of an in-house movement is very well established and it does not mean just assembled. If that were the case Breitling would have claimed in-house in about 2007 when they were buying ETA movement parts from suppliers like Sellita and doing all assembly from mainplate onwards in their own facilities.

I am stating that Breilting used the blueprints from Tudor and built the movement in their own facilities.

Breitling had guidance from Tudor in the development of the movement.

Seriously.... I would rather they call this a modified movement instead of a manufactured movement. It's not about the price or the performance or the design. It's fine to collaborate with another brand. However to name this as a manufactured movement, they are displaying a double standard in the way they define their in-house movements, which to me, is as good as tainting and degrading the image of all their-house movements. It's such a pity.... I was just beginning to feel that Breitling's image is moving higher up. IMO this is one of the worst things they have ever done.

I know many would disagree with me, but I am rather upset that of all brands Breitling chose to collaborate with Tudor. Many know Tudor as the "lower end Rolex". It's like at one moment you see Breitling trying to position themselves on a higher scale, but suddenly it's like they put themselves in the "same league" as a "lower end Rolex". I don't really see that as a good move from the marketing perspective.