So my original assumption was therefore must be using a web interface to some sort of unix desktop and then sshing from there, right? However on second thought the article implies once you're trusted you're trusted and all systems are enforcing their own security so maybe people are sitting on UNIX desktops at Starbucks, authenticating via a certificate and then trusted across the public interfaces of Google's assets. That too would make perfect sense and still fit the spirit of the article.
The question is really do you have trusted access from a portable device or simply via one?
Again this really is speculation on my part and I'll happily own that. I can only dream of the level of access the average Googler has; the regulatory oversight and internal interpretation of same has resulted in far harsher limits in my space.
> if you are presupposing they use Chromebooks as dumb terminals, I don't know where you're getting this $1000 figure from. If that's were the use-case then there's no reason not to go with the cheapest Chromebooks available, which can be as low as $200.
That's wrong: A dumb terminal is basically a screen, a keyboard, and a network interface. A $200 Chromebook is going to have much lower quality versions of all three than a $1000 Chromebook. So, there is a very good reason why Google wouldn't issue "the cheapest Chromebooks available."