What are the advantages of a hosted SharePoint vs. one that is on an in-house server?
-
No benefits
-
- It’s like taking service from other IT vendors
-
- No hardware investment, i.e. lower costs, No software to download - ready to start from the word go, No IT resources - Anyone who has used a Web program like Hotmail can use it, Faster deployment
-
- No IT resources
Hosted SharePoint's advantages (option C) include: no upfront hardware investment (lower CAPEX), no software installation (browser-based access), reduced IT overhead (vendor manages infrastructure), and faster deployment. Cloud hosting shifts from capital expenditure to operational expenditure. Options A and D are clearly incorrect (not 'no benefits' and IT resources still needed, just fewer). Option B is vague and not a benefit. The correct answer lists multiple concrete advantages of cloud-hosted vs on-premises SharePoint.
A hosted (SaaS/cloud) SharePoint deployment removes the need to buy and maintain servers, so there's no upfront hardware capital cost and lower ongoing costs. Nothing needs to be downloaded or installed — the vendor keeps it running and updated, so it's ready to use immediately, much like signing up for a web-based email service such as Hotmail: if you can use that, you can use hosted SharePoint. It also doesn't require in-house IT staff to rack, patch, and troubleshoot servers, and deployment is much faster since there's no procurement or setup cycle. "No benefits" is wrong because hosting clearly has advantages. "Like taking service from other IT vendors" is vague and doesn't actually describe an advantage. "No IT resources" alone is only one benefit, not the full picture, making it a weaker, incomplete answer compared to the comprehensive option.