In the context of this article, no one said that restricting supply increases demand- though it can lead to free publicity.
It actually goes like this:
Production lines and tooling are flippin' expensive. Building more production capacity than you need can lose you huge amounts of money, instead of turning over a modest profit. Demand varies throughout the year (think "back to school / Christmas). Money is often spent at less busy times of the year to artificially increase demand, since this allows for a smoother output over the year. As the man said, 'over-demand is not an problem'.
You seem to imply that there is an 'opportunity', a 'window', and on that point I agree- strike whilst the iron is hot. In consumer electronics this is know as targeting the 'First Adopters' - those consumers who will pay above the odds to have a product before everyone else does (example: original iPhone was $600 for a few months before being reduced to $400 after just a few months, although a $100 refund was given to the first adopters, the rebate being allowed by the profit being made and demanded by more strategic PR considerations). However, investing heavily in order to meet what may turn out to be a spike in demand is foolish, unless it buys you, for example, a larger market share that you can then exploit at your leisure (as can happen in the video game console market).
For maximum profit, you want as few machines to make your product as possible, operating for as long as is possible. Some situations, such as war, dictate that you build as many machines to make you as much product, such as guns, as is possible in as short a time-scale as is possible- but this will decrease profit (for the country as a whole, obviously individual arms manuscript can and do do very well).
Lots of people have lost money by investing it to meet (over) ambitious expectations of demand, thinking they can become very rich. Don't be greedy and you will probably make enough money to be comfortable. : D