Elsevier responding to pressure is not unprecedented; doctors protesting to the Lancet ultimately forced the parent company to sell off a defence trade show that was part of their exhibitions business (although divesting divisions of their trade businesses is something of a hobby for Reed Elsevier anyway). That had a difference though: they were pressurising Elsevier to take specific courses of action.
In this case, it appears to be more of a "we won't work for you because we don't respect your ethics" stance. Which is fine, but they'll have to continue reading and citing articles in Elsevier journals in their work to be respected as academics.
Ultimately, the value of copyrights giving Elsevier exclusive control over access to thousands of existing "must cite" articles in searchable format means it would continue to be a profitable entity if it stopped publishing new material of comparable quality or any new material at all. It's a drop in profits I'm sure the Elsevier board would rather avoid, but the boycott doesn't seem to be offering them any more attractive alternatives.
In this case, it appears to be more of a "we won't work for you because we don't respect your ethics" stance. Which is fine, but they'll have to continue reading and citing articles in Elsevier journals in their work to be respected as academics.
Ultimately, the value of copyrights giving Elsevier exclusive control over access to thousands of existing "must cite" articles in searchable format means it would continue to be a profitable entity if it stopped publishing new material of comparable quality or any new material at all. It's a drop in profits I'm sure the Elsevier board would rather avoid, but the boycott doesn't seem to be offering them any more attractive alternatives.