It is true that Chinese characters contain so much nonphonetic information that writing can be understood even if you've written something that would be total nonsense if spoken aloud. And similarly, that extra information can substitute for a certain amount of context.

But it's obviously not necessary, because all writing still has just as much context as speech does. The fact that you need the context less doesn't somehow make it go away.

I know next-to-nothing about Chinese, but it seems to me that if a language can be spoken, it can be represented with a phonetic alphabet. There might be sentences in written Chinese that wouldn't make sense in spoken Chinese, and these wouldn't make sense in the phonetic alphabet either, but if we can agree that spoken Chinese is useful, then the phonetically written Chinese would also be useful.

However, if I were Chinese, I might worry that due to simplicity, the phonetically-written Chinese would eclipse the traditionally-written Chinese quickly. Those sentences which only make sense in traditionally-written, not spoken or phonetically-written Chinese, would obviously be a huge cultural loss. Not everything is about making business more efficient.