"...although the higher refresh rates on mobile devices do not really make sense..."

Provided the extra Hz is free (like retina resolution), and doesn't cost noticeable extra power, it's still quite noticeable for things like browser scrolling and other stuff. 

The problem is the jump from 60Hz to 90Hz is only 1.5x improvement in motion clarity.  Reducing motion blur only by a third.  That's pretty pitiful on a small screen.  However, increasing 60Hz to 240Hz on a small smartphone, if it can be done at zero additional cost (battery wise, power wise, cost wise), can reduce motion blur by 75%.  This begins to finally be more noticeable for things like browser scrolling.

Let's remember the former mainstream media claims that retina resolutions was not worth it for mobiles.   Famous last words -- and the same applies to retina refresh rates.   

Moore's Law of refresh rates is that refresh rates approximately double every 5-10 years, and this will continue through the 21st century especially as it becomes low cost / free / included, much like retina-ization of mobile screens.

It's worth noting that 240 Hz doesn't just benefit games.

LCD 240 Hz has 1/4th the motion blur during web-browser scrolling, so it makes things a lot more enjoyable.

The way things work with flickerless displays (sample-and-hold, non-CRT) is that you need double Hz in order to halve scrolling motion blur.  That's why a lot of us are big fans of high-Hz screens as ergonomic screens (eliminating motion blur without using flicker techniques), even for non-gaming contexts too.  That's why the 120Hz iPads exist as well -- and 240Hz is yet another step up!

It's great to know GtG is less than half a refresh cycle, though ideally GtG needs to be less than 1/4 refresh cycle to be below the noise floor of interfering with the Hz clarity (ghosting/coronas).   Even 1ms creates human-visible blur differences (i.e. 3 extra pixel motion blur at 3000 pixels/second scrolling).