Yes, this was pretty much my thought. I guess sarcasm doesn't come out well in short sentences, but no big deal.
There's no reason for Apple or anyone to oversupply on opening day. In Apple's case, by shutting down preorders they generate press just because they're declaring it full. If you open a site to beta traffic with signup, then get coverage at a place like Techcruch, and shut down signups with only 10 users but don't delcare it, the press will think you're a hot item if you don't provide numbers.
That isn't exactly the case with Apple, of course -- they are a hot item. Without numbers, though... they could have sold 10 or 10 million. I'm sure the other estimates made in the thread circling 250,000 are close though.
Actual economic scarcity is pretty much the only business model, but I think you are using the term differently. A profit-maximizing enterprise should be looking for market clearing volume and pricing. Produce more than the market will consume at a given price point and you have excess inventory; produce less and you leak your potential profit into the secondary market.
I'm pretty sure there is value in creating the _perception_ of scarcity (nee exclusivity) for one's product... but that should also be conveyed in the price.
Not particularly, JIT is based on proper forecasting, something difficult to do with new products (especially form Apple's standpoint). It is more appropriate with established products, which may have spikes in their demand (iPods get bought more during Christmas).
No. Just think about how hard it is to actually manage the task of production - to get things right and not end up with a bunch of defective or badly designed hardware that gets returned. So you see how scarcity is unavoidable (basic economics), and artificial scarcity is a bad business model (basic economics again: Apple would gladly make more money faster if they could!)
