If that turns out to be true, then they really need to set their priorities straight [scammers will surely try to capitalize on this situation]!
I don't know anyone who purchased Nano X device recently so I can't verify that, but it would be interesting to get in contact with Kraken dev team who tested many hardware wallet devices.
I would love to see one more teardown and review from them, or from some other similar team (Not counting ledger donjon obviously).
The Nano X has become a suck fest of a hardware wallet to the point that there is no more turning back. I am so glad that I got the Nano S a few years ago and was never tempted to acquire version X. More precisely, the older generations seem OK. It's these new ones that are completely messed up. They should just get rid of it and replace it with the Nano S Plus. They obviously don't know how to fix the problem or are looking for the cheapest possible solution that turns out not to be a solution at all but the birth of new problems.
It is a total suck fest, and I never saw any other hardware wallet with so many problems like Nano X, but they have good advertisement and people still buy it.
I hope that new model S plus will fix some of this problems because it doesn't have any battery, but only if it doesn't adopt anything from model X.
It sure is going to be very interesting next few months in hardware wallet world, and I can't wait to hear feedback from people.