That’s fine if it is all you have to do all day.
If a hacker get’s through the perimeter I might be up all night :eek
More seriously. The benefit depends on what you are trying to achieve.
If you are looking to host a dinky little static web site, consuming a couple 100Mb a month, that makes no contribution to essential revenue, sure, shared tenancy hosting (cpanel) is a no brainer. You ain’t never going to recover the cap-ex and time invested in commissioning your own server. However, as needs get more complex, bandwidth requirements rise or revenue dependence increases, the cost / benefit shifts towards ownership.
Shared tenancy. Having someone else look after the platform for a <$1 a day sounds great but it’s a little like Windows Update. The hosting company makes changes without reference. Sometimes those changes require applications to be refactored, and you get little warning. Sometimes the hosting company messes up and you end up carrying the cost of their mistakes, as well as your own. And sometimes, because hosting companies make money by selling off their headroom, they oversell and your site degrades to a crawl while you wait for them to upgrade.
VPS is interesting. It looks attractive even to me but every time I do the math, like for like, owning hardware works out cheaper over 3 years. If you don’t have a server sitting around and need a platform to pilot, I guess a VPS can make sense.
AWS (cloud) is like a drug pusher. Costs nothing to get started but the more you become invested, the more the nickel and dimes add up. When you realise the cost of moving has gotten enormous, you are already addicted.
Co-Location. It’s expensive but for protecting critical revenues it is often the best choice. The biggest drawback is the narrow margin for error. If you mess up so badly you have to visit the data-centre, it can be hours in the car.
Internal (Private network). The big advantages are convenience and virtually free, virtually limitless bandwidth. The big disadvantage is if you need to get to it from the public network (internet) the opposite applies.
In all cases, your server is never better than the person looking after it. I support shared hosting, co-location and internal servers. Guess which is the least consistent and requires the most non-scheduled intervention - Yep, it’s the shared hosting.
Overall though, I spend far more time fixing my desktops than fixing my servers. People forget how much time they end up investing in the irritations caused by the computer on their desk. Sure, servers need the investment all at once but if you get the commissioning right, and don’t continually tinker like Travis, a server (should) need relatively little intervention over it’s life time.