It's not being negative to point out the glaring flaws in a person's statements. My assumption is the entire thing is an advertisement for that hosting service.
(Or better yet, serve the thing off S3 and let Amazon be your CDN.)
I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directly, or you'll pay for leeching off someone else's bill in karma. For a very tiny, low-traffic, low-bandwidth website, I think not using a CDN is perfectly reasonable.
Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff.
If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group), which is a conglomerate that's buying up all the shared hosts and making them crappy.
Bam. Now you have economies of scale AND far cheaper hosting than any VPS.
If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld
You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1].
Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternative and call it a day.
My (limited) experience with Vultr[2] has also been fairly satisfactory.
[1] https://www.digitalocean.com/ [2] https://www.vultr.com/pricing/
Correctness of operation does not only refer to end-to-end data integrity, but also to adequate capability to diagnose and inspect system state, in addition to being able to deliver correct output in face of severe software or hardware failures. Linux is out as far as all of those.
In other words, if you want JustWorks(SM), rock solid substrate for (web)applications, anybody not running on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or some illumos derivative like SmartOS is out, at least for me. Perhaps your deployment is different, but I don't want to have to wake up in the middle of the night. I want for the OS to continue working correctly even if hardware underneath is busted, so I can deal with it on my own schedule, and not that of managers'.
From my perspective (as a freelance web tech/dev professional who routinely manages close to two dozen hosting accounts for clients), what you're saying above comes very very close to driving a nail with a sledgehammer.
Hosting clientele is notoriously high maintenance; the more technology ignorant, the higher the maintenance in terms of support, and the more fallout one has to deal with when there is downtime.
My time is expensive. My free time is exorbitantly expensive. Therefore, when I pick a solution and decide to deploy on it, it has to be as much "fire-and-forget" as is possible. Picking a bulletproof substrate to offer my services on also increases the time available to provide higher quality service to my clients: since my time dealing with basic infrastructure is reduced as much as possible, I have more of it to spend on providing better service and adding value, thereby increasing the client retention rate. Because of the economy involved in this, and especially considering how razor thin hosting margins are, I feel that the nail with a sledgehammer metaphor is inapplicable to this scenario.