ShirleyMarquez
They're a niche market: C-level executives at companies that use Chromebooks, developers at those companies, Linux fans who will mostly use the Chromebook to run Linux apps. They make more economic sense as an adaptation of a laptop that is already being sold for other markets rather than as a dedicated product.
The Pixelbook line never did enough volume for Google to make money on it. It was a proof of concept, a way of showing that a Chromebook didn't have to just mean a low end and cheaply built Acer or the like, but could be something that higher end users would happily use and not be ashamed to be seen with when they do a presentation. Now that other companies are making premium Chromebooks, there is no longer a need for Google to produce them.
MIT's network policies are not purely about what makes financial sense. The Institute was one of the birthplaces of the internet, and they see the ongoing development of it as one of their core missions. MIT has a close relationship with W3C, which is located a stone's throw away. Their network is multi-homed to the max; I think they peer with ALL the backbone providers that operate in the US. The school has ludicrous amounts of internet bandwidth; I think it's now measured in terabits per second. After all, they have to be able to cope with thousands of students watching Netflix along with all the research!
And just in case there is a REAL internet collapse... they have an emergency info site at mit.NET that is hosted far away from the campus. That would let them get some information out even if Cambridge were wiped off the map and all the name servers for .edu were to fail.
Like most large institutions, MIT doesn't give public IP addresses to most client devices (desktops, laptops, phones, and tablets); they get DHCP address in the 10.x.x.x range behind a NAT because it's a bit easier to firewall them that way. But real IP addresses are available if you need them to run services.