EVFs are more expensive than OVFs, if the EVF is decent.
I have to disagree with you here, it's not just the cost of the pentaprism, you have to factor in the whole mirror mechanism as well as the seperate af senor and its submirror and the light meter; none of these are required for mirrorless/EVF designs.
(lens design freedom) This isn't an advantage of an EVF, it's an advantage of removing the mirror box, and only if your entire lens system changes.
As I stated previously, using an EVF allows you to remove the mirror, which in turn allows lens designers to use this space for lens elements, especially when the EF mount is used for a crop frame sensor -there is no need to remove the mirror box entirely. Early ultra wide angle SLR lenses require the use of mirror lock-up and external finders.
(shooting information, electronic focusing aids) I consider that a disadvantage, as it's distracting. I turn it all off on my EVF cameras. The only advantage is for manual focus situations.
Others might find the information useful, you're not their only customer, and as you state, you can turn it off. I find manually focussing fast lenses difficult with modern viewfinders and autofocus isn't always reliable at large apertures (and changing focussing screens is a PITA).
Zero power draw (is a "Con") as well.
Fair comment, but I don't think it's a deal breaker. Battery technology moves on.
Since (cheaper to produce) is an invalid reason, I don't see why they'd bother to make everything else worse.
So cheaper to produce to isn't a valid reason? For a mass market producer, I would say it was the most valid of reasons. I'm not saying that there will not be a market for traditional DSLR technology, just that the mass market will no longer be willing to pay the price premium.