Yes, 30 FPS is faster than 24 FPS but in this case faster isn't necessarily better.
You can't think of FPS for movies in the same way that you think of FPS in video games or even stop-motion. Each frame is an exposure that is not instantaneous, but captures light over a fraction of a second. A slower frame-rate allows for longer exposures. And longer exposures produce a different look than shorter exposures. Firstly, a longer exposure collects more light (all else being equal) which means that less amplification is needed. This results in less noise (or grain in film). A longer exposure is "better" in the same way that a physically bigger sensor is... it collects more light.
A longer exposure also captures motion (blur), depending on what you're trying to do this may be a benefit or a disadvantage. 24fps is often described as "smooth" or "dreamy" and is used for movies and many prime-time dramas. 24fps is fast enough to not look "jerky" but very fast motion will look blurred. In certain cases this may be a disadvantage such as sports where you want to very sharply track very quickly moving items like hockey pucks.
I was very happy and surprised to hear that Apple seems to understand and defend the concept that "better pixels" are more important than "more pixels". It's not a tragedy that the iPhone shoots only 30fps, it is a phone after all. But it is aggravating to see reviewers automatically favor cameras with 30fps over 24/25fps. This is the type of thing that has inspired the pixel-race and the possibility of people pushing for higher frame rates at the cost of lowered quality from tiny sensors in the future could end up being a tragedy.
