I completely agree with this. "Customers" want something, Elsevier says they'll make it for a price but if they make it and offer it for a price, people either

I completely agree with this. "Customers" want something, Elsevier says they'll make it for a price but if they make it and offer it for a price, people either have to accept, pay, and take it, or reject, not pay, and not take it. Elsevier is not responsible for changing this, the "customers" are. Individual researchers are just the puppets in this play. The institutions and funding agencies that pull their strings are the "customers" that could require something different and change the system to whatever they were willing to pay for. These "customers" should be pressured from every direction to require open access. Any particular business practice by Elsevier is ultimately irrelevant. The customers will get something different when they pay for something different. If the customers (institutions and agencies that pay) demanded that the end product be put online with no paywall, someone (Elsevier or their replacement) will quote a price for whatever preparation service was required (filtering for quality? management of peer review? editing? graphics?) PLUS hosting, and the "customers" could pay for that, find another provider, or do it themselves or in a consortium. They are the ones who need to change.