I don't find anything especially objectionable, wrong or disagreeable. The only reservation I had has to do with an inference or two a watch newbie may take form the article. Even so, I still feel it's an excellent resource for gaining a good understanding of what watch movements are most commonly found in the marketplace, and the author does a very good job of explaining, at a high level, the merits of those movements. Trust me, I would not have shared the link to that article if I had content issues with it.
My issue has more to do with context than with content or accuracy. I just mentioned it in the interest of full disclosure, not to discredit the writer. Indeed, only two statements struck me as a bit out of place, and I do mean out of place. The statements belong much closer to each other. The specific statements are these:
The manufacture (also called in-house) movement is considered a symbol of watchmaking prowess and quality.
The premium paid, and the adoration of the market, for an in-house calibre has a lot to do with cachet and marketing.
The first statement is an accurate statement, and so is the second, but their placement -- rather distanced from each other -- might lead casual readers to place more value on in-house that such things actually are due. The second statement correctly implies that a degree of circumspection is warranted when considering manufacture watches. I think too that the author left out an important distinction concerning the nature/scope of relevance in-house should has for various buyers.
For a consumer who is a somewhat or very serious collector, in-house oftentimes matters because of the impact it will have on the overall (non-monetary) value and merit of a collection as being representative of something. Think of it as though one were curating a collection for a museum. It's about what the collection illustrates and the story it tells and manufacture watches must necessarily be included in most such collections.
For a consumer who just wants an excellent watch, even if she is is collecting -- that is in the sense of having several or a lot of watches -- watches, there isn't necessarily any imperative militating for them to require a watch's movement be in-house. There's nothing right or wrong about such a consumer choosing an in-house watch, but there's no need to do so. The in-house-ness says more about the company who makes the movement than it does about the effectiveness of a watch that has such a movement or a watch that doesn't.
After all what's the difference between a movement maker like ETA, F. Piguet, Vaucher,
et al and one like JLC? The difference is that JLC puts cases, crystals and dials around those movements and those other folks don't do that. As a result, the impact of "drinking the in-house kool-aid" is that one is tacitly saying that watch A is superior to watch B because company A puts a case around the movement and company B does not.
It's true that for a watch company, being able to produce their own movements is demonstrable evidence of a certain set of skills that that company has developed. Moreover, nearly always are such movements high quality ones. However, not always, even as they are high quality, do they perform any better than non-in-house movements. Indeed, as often as not, there's not any performance difference between an in-house movement and high quality one that's not in-house such as the chronometer grade ETAs the author mentioned.
I could go on and deepen the strength of my position, but I think you get it already. My issue with the article I identified has to do with what the author didn't say, not with what he did say.
All the best.