Most are also larger, heavier, with higher power consumption, and sometimes uncomfortably high minimum brightness. They rarely use the same panels as retail models because they have to support different operating conditions like extreme temperatures and 24/7 operation.

And the worst part, usually way more expensive too, seen some panels where the cost was double because the target market is "ad agencies" or whatever.

> the cost was double because the target market is "ad agencies" or whatever.

A TV capable of operating in those conditions has to be more expensive or else it'll need replacing twice as often and cost even more long term. Remember when Tesla used bog standard laptop screens in their dash because they were cheaper than automotive grade, leading to high failure rate?

This makes me wonder if my local McDonalds, which has three big screens mounted vertically in the drive-thru, ended up with not the commercial grade ones. They’re cooking in the sun in a hot climate all day, so they fail and turn into flickery messes, and it seems like they’re on a cycle of roughly 3 months newly-replaced & working, 1 year flickering.

They’re probably inside commercial displays - not outdoor rated, which are much, much more expensive (and usually look much worse).

Yeah, if you want a TV that looks terrible. They usually have terrible response times and focus on nits at all costs. Try watching anything HDR on a display panel.