Server name indication isn’t all benefits. For example, SNI isn’t supported by all web browsers - although this admittedly only effects a small number of users. The fact that SNI is not a perfect model, (it’s more of a simple transfer solution) can be seen in the way information is transmitted unencrypted. True, the only information is the host name, but this information could be protected from third-party attacks with even basic encryption. It would be more secure if you didn’t have to use SNI and instead each website had its own IP address.
Since this can’t be changed due to the tight IP address range (at least until IPv6 is implemented globally), other options have to be found. One of these options is SNI. Another would be Subject Alternative Name certificates (SAN): with these certificates, you have the option of entering multiple domains or hostnames. This would mean, by implication, that it doesn’t matter to the server which domain the client actually wants to address since the certificate is valid for all domains on the server. The downside of these certificates, however, is that they’re comparatively expensive. It’s understandable, then, that many website operators aren’t ready to implement such certificates. Instead of using absolutely no encryption at all, SNI is a good interim solution.