Partly construction, partly that the target market simply is willing to pay more, and partly that the cost of consumer sets are subsidized by some of the third-part analytics software that comes preinstalled in order to collect and sell information on what people are watching.

I imagine part of it would be that the displays are assumed to be run almost nonstop.

The fact that the cost isn't subsidized by the tracking and advertising provided by the smart tv

(I have no evidence for this but I've seen this comment posted many times before)

Here's the evidence for it, by the way. Straight from an interview with the CTO of Vizio: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit...

It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.

Bingo! Those Roku / FireTV / Netflix / Amazon/ Etc logos on the boxes don't pay for themselves.

Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.

Because they're designed for 24 hour, 7 days a week use. Components like power supplies will be far higher quality.

Many of them have integrated signage software too like MagicInfo and have video wall capabilities etc.

Commercial displays are the first class airplane tickets of the display/TV market.

Are there any drawbacks to using one for home use?

Dramatically more expensive.

When I looked a larger high end 4K consumer TV was cheaper than a smaller 1080P commercial display.