Delivery to end customers is not equivalent to delivery as part of a supply chain. Instead of $1K of iPhones, think of it as $1Mn worth of components for a manufacturing process or items to be placed on a shelf. Many of those items' shipping timeframes are well-known and factored into calculations of supply and demand. If a customer wants to buy something from you and you're out of stock, they're generally not going to sit on their hands and wait patiently, they're going to buy from your competitors or not at all. That money is gone.
Also, consider that we're at the end of a financial quarter, and this could also account for missed targets for all manner of industry.
You've just gone up a level to draw the boundary at the wrong place. That money isn't "gone", because as you've said, the customer simply buys from a competitor.
This is going to be bad for some individual businesses (imagine a small business buying a whole container of perishable goods), but systemically it's a blip. Delays are not destruction. Failure to make something is not the same as spending resources to make it only to have it destroyed.
Money shifted around to different winners, but very little damage occurred.
It’s not Just complicated but a ton of math has been used for the last fifty years to make it as cheap as possible at the cost of robustness. Removing stacks of supplies at factories and ware houses in favor of just in time deliveries. Consolidating redundant factories. That sort of thing. I am not in logistics but I worked I a factory as an intern with the operations research group in the 1980s.
Also, consider that we're at the end of a financial quarter, and this could also account for missed targets for all manner of industry.