The article lists the significant performance gains. Why render on wimpy phones over bad network when a cheap aws box can do it for you?

That aside, Next.js and the recent related vulnerabilities made me weary of RSC and I struggle to see the benefit of RSCs over the previous server side rendered and hydrated model. Chances are TanStack will do a better job than Vercel and yet the bumpy ride of the last few years tarnished the whole idea.

1. Rendered content, if there is enough of it, will be more content to send across wire than a cached bundle.

2. Cached bundles are cached. Network doesnt matter when its cached

3. Even bottom of the barrel motorolas are not wimpy nowadays

4. The obvious reasons why I dont want my aws box to do rendering is because it will need to everyone's rendering, and how big "everyone" is in not constant. It's another moving part in a complex system that can break. Also because I have to pay for the box.

5. Fast networks are becoming more and more ubiquitous

6. The performance gains are for a static site, which won't necessarily be representative of typical saas. How do you measure the risk and cost of my site breaking because my date rendering server got overloaded?

It's not 2010 anymore. Client compute is fast. Server compute is slow and expensive. 4G is ubiquitous and 3G is being phased out.

You can send a tiny amount of JS from a CDN and render on the client. You will save money because the server is efficiently serving JSON instead of doing a gazillion calls and string interpolation per request. The user won't notice.

Also, now that the server is responding with JSON it doesn't need to run any JS at all, so you can rewrite the server in an even more efficient language and save even more money.