Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics,established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the faceof 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).
As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.
The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.i
It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.
Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes
. This incarnation is no different in that regard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.