I don’t know if I’m one of the haters, or one of the technorati, but I’m certainly one of the skeptics. To your points:

Consumption leading to production: depends on the timeframe and the ecosystem of devices. So yes, American broadcast tv in the 1960s did lead to (among other things) Star Trek fans mimeo-ing fanzine and slash. But that depends on framing the question quite broadly, assuming that “tv” as a system includes a large variety of other devices (typewriter, mimeo, snail mail), knowledge, and collaborative attitudes. That’s not usually what Americans thought of, or think of, when we say “tv”. And my example includes not only one of the triumphs of fan fiction, but also one of the acmes of tied-down, corporation-driven, few-options broadcast.

Apply that to the iPad and again it becomes a question of framing. If the iPad is one screen among a set of devices, like the 3 screens model, then awesome. I’ll read a Wired story on it, say (but not hyperlink out very far, apparently), then write it up on my laptop. I do something similar, now, with shifting my attention from an e-book reader (Kindle 1) to laptop (Dell Vista). But this ain’t how the iPad is being marketed. Remember how, for example, Jobs explicitly positioned the iPad in opposition to netbooks, emphasizing office productivity tools, and how many reviewers are calling it a potential laptop-killer. Maybe that’s how it’ll be used, maybe not. We’ll keep an eye out for it.

Back to framing: how many IP-based companies see social media as an existential threat? How many of those would be delighted to see people shift their consumption from a production device (laptop, desktop) to a consumption-centric one? That’s a potent lockdown logic for quite a few businesses, and we’d be blind not to see it.

But I do think you’re right, that we need to watch for its emergent properties. It’s too early to celebrate or condemn entirely… but not too early to be critical.