This is the approach I use with laptops domestically, and I think that there's something to be said for it. Like, the laptop itself doesn't store important information. A remote server does. The laptop is just a thin client. If the laptop gets lost or stolen -- which I've had happen -- I revoke the credentials. No important information is lost, and no important information is exposed.
Whole-disk laptop encryption has improved things too from an exposure standpoint (albeit not a loss standpoint), though I don't use it myself (don't want to spend any battery life on it). I assume that smartphones have some form of reasonably-secure storage hardware, but I don't know if it involves encryption.
What I found irritating -- and this is years back now -- was an employer who didn't care if I took a laptop in or out or what information I stored on it (as long as it was a work system), but who refused to provide remote access to the network, so I couldn't just keep the important information on the work network. I mean, I get if they want to have some sort of isolated DMZ and require an externally-accessible server to live there, not provide VPN access in to the general network, but not having the ability to have remote network access to work systems at all is just incredibly obnoxious.
I think that some of it is that Windows is not phenomenal to use remotely. Yeah, there are solutions, but they aren't great if you're on a high-latency, low-reliability, or low-bandwidth link. I try to use console Linux for as much of my stuff as possible. That whole ecosystem was designed around thin-client, remote use.