The problem is most have shitty systems. All blurry and stuff. Even banks camera's blurry. My $24 WYZE camera is way clearer than what the media post.
4K HD standard recording wasn't available when most systems were purchased. "TV quality", or 480p (720x480), was the standard for many, many years -- and expensive compared to less resolution 320p cameras.
The higher the resolution, the more recording and backup storage space is needed, and the faster the recording system needs to be to handle that data stream, Multiply that HD camera's needs by a dozen or more, and the trade-offs start happening. Lower resolution, B&W vs color, and slower refresh rates (standard TV is 60Hz, and better TVs do higher multiples like 120Hz & 240Hz). Lowering the refresh to 30 frames per second (fps) or 15 fps greatly reduces the system requirements to handle the video being recorded and stored.
Prices have come way down, thanks to companies like Wyze. However, if you read the manual (website), they specifically state their products are not to be relied upon for security applications. They just aren't that reliable.
It costs a bunch to upgrade a security system. You need to run power and a/v cables if not already in place and capable. You need backup power, a/v recording and backup media/hardware. Cameras need to be protected from the elements if outdoors and from tampering (heavy duty housings, cable conduit, etc). WiFi is not reliable enough nor robust enough to handle most business' video surveillance needs. Physical cables run to each camera is needed. Luckily, PoE cables that carry both power and a/v signals saves on the installation cost, but the cameras and recording systems can cost a little more, too.
Most of these places that show their crappy video on the news use the systems mainly as a visible deterrent more than anything. It can fill in the gaps when needing to know who did what and in what order, but it is horrible for identification.