This really exemplifies my thoughts on the issue. Nokia acts as though they know the extent of the problem but they haven't recalled the affected devices. Logically, if they're likely to fail anyway, why not recall them before they do so they can be modified with whatever fix they think is going to help so they can avoid excessive spending since they know the extent to which this problem reaches. Since they haven't done that, it follows that they expect this issue which affects only a "limited" number of devices to be a number of devices which approaches 100% and the limited part seems to be taking into account devices which happen to never be charged.

To sum it up, if Nokia knows how many are affected, why no recall? I don't see any indication that this is limited in scope and assume, for lack of info, that the "limited" part of their public statement is as true as the last words they used to describe the problem: "physical damage". I returned mine *because* they didn't do a recall after that they knew how many devices were affected because knowing the number of affected devices implies knowing which devices are affected.