Countless novelists have proved that it's absolutely possible to create very compelling stories within the previous canon.
Kurtzman and Orci are simply lazy writers that don't want to be bothered by the task of learning about the setting for which they write. They're the kind of hacks that would agree to write a story that takes place in Beijing, and then complain that Chinese culture, history, and geography are too constraining.
Speaking as one of those novelists, I seriously doubt that the movie people opted for a reboot simply because they were too "lazy" to research the topic. Trust me, you can bring yourself up to speed on almost any TV series in a couple of weeks, especially now that we have DVDs and the internet. I've done it myself, more than once.
(True confession: I had only seen a couple episodes of CSI before I started writing those books. But I knew the series backwards and forwards within a week or two, thanks to on-line episode guides and reruns on Spike!)
Whether you agree or not, there were definite advantages (both commercial and artistic) to rebooting STAR TREK in order to attract a new generation of viewers. You may have have weighed the pros and cons differently, and come to different decision, but there were
pros as well as cons to starting over again . . . especially if the idea was to kickstart a fading franchise back to life.
Plus, again, the issue isn't about whether it's possible to tell compelling stories in the old continuity. It was about how to get the general public interested in TREK again. And that public doesn't care what happens after NEMESIS. Heck, most of them have never even heard of NEMESIS . . . .
(In my experience, the average moviegoer remembers Khan, the whales, and the Borg . . . and that's it. Most people are shocked to find out there was more than three or four Trek movies!)