Are there any negative outcomes if these remastered consoles are successful...

Market penetration. When 90% of your total addressable market have version 1.0 you optimize for that and halfass the support for version 2.0. Hard to say where the crossover point would be but as it can be expected that the relative size of the TAM for version 2.0 will rise slow but steady, I'd expect the switch at around 30%.
Marketing people say this. It's a lie. This will be the last gen, because it'll last forever. When you buy a console 20 years from now, it'll still run games released 2013 because it's just the console gen 8.whatever then. Still the same base architecture, just with added bells and whistles. Like a PC, just with better compatibility.

...

...

The target demographic. There's absolutely no way that people owning a PS4 Pro will outnumber people owning a regular PS4 at the beginning. It will take years for that.
Until then Devs will develop games optimized for the lowest common demonimator.

PS4 pro CPU is barely more powerful than the PS3 CELL.

Well, simply put it depends on how many people will own the improved hardware.
Generally speaking 90% of the consumers will stay on their current PS4, thus it's in their best interests to keep aiming to please them as their priority.

Consoles have been outdated since they were first revealed for at least 3-4 generations.

The Cell was expensive, and part of what drove up the PS3's price. It was also hard to work with according to devs, and the time it would take to familiarize with that tech would be better spent on optimization or better rendering techniques on a less foreign architecture.

Granted, going x86 did jack shit for producing more interesting games like it was supposed to, but going Cell-based now wouldn't fix that at all. Seriously, why do you think it took a while for the PS3 to lose its "no gaems" meme?

Fixed

If it leads to an industry crash, I'm all for it.

Thanks kikes.