They could; but it would cost developer time (or other resources; all resources are equivalent to time, cash, and/or cocaine ) that would be put to other uses. So that particular argument ("there are other more "important" things to do and making a PIM will take time away from them") that has allegedly been "proven false" is still valid, unless it can be proven that the PIM is more important than those other uses.

I don't say that Nokia should not make a PIM, or that they are not working on any less important projects they could divert resources from. But to deny that it does take away from other resources is ridiculous, and to claim proof that the resources would not adversely affect more important projects is... bizarre. I'm not sure which of those was the intent in suggesting that that excuse was "proven false", but I don't see either of them as sane, and I don't see any other possibilities.

And most of those pretty weak arguments aren't fielded much, or are distorted versions. For example, no one (I know of) says the tablets shouldn't have PIM because they are not PDAs; they say that Nokia can't see PIM as an important goal to throw resources at because they are not intended as PDAs. Very different.

My main way of minimizing demand / excusing absence: "Hey, I don't use a PIM. If you want one, go write one, go march on Nokia HQ, or go whatever, but count me out." Usually, I express this by not posting directly on the topic; I just hang out and pounce on people who make ridiculous arguments about the non-cost of developing a PIM.

One factor seldom addressed is that Nokia's applications generally have a tendency to be annoying and awkward to use, largely because of their UI spec. Therefore it might be better not to have Nokia produce a PIM, but pay a developer to work on an existing project (GPE, perhaps) outside the UI restrictions... (i.e. "throw some at a developer working...", as you said.)