As I said, other people's behaviour is not my concern and there is a clear difference between replica and homage. Whether you choose to accept that or not is, again, not my concern.
Don't take this as a personal attack, but what is the "clear difference"? I don't think you've established this yet. As I see it:
One is a 'fake' and one is an 'hommage';
One is a cheaper copy of an original, more expensive design that is trying to be indistinguishable from the original. The other is a cheaper copy of an original, more expensive design that is trying to be indistinguishable from the original, but with the actual maker's name on the face rather than the name of the original's maker... but from a distance it is designed to fool.
Seems like a very small difference to me, and in the spirit of it all, basically no difference at all. I have to agree with Apropos on this one until you can convincingly say why an hommage is significantly better than a replica, when they seem to be trying to cash in on someone else's design or reputation by imitating that.
Stitches is also right - strictly an hommage is a nod to a bygone, classical design, usually from the same maker. Such as the new Longines Conquest inspired by the '60s model of the same name - new watch, old design. When a Steinhart or whatever comes out looking 99% like a current model Rolex, I think that's a bit cynical.