On January 27, 2026, OpenMind announced that its robot app store had gone live on Apple’s App Store. At first glance, it may appear to be just another tech company launching a new product. A closer look, however, reveals something more profound: this is the first serious attempt by the robotics industry to address a challenge even more fundamental than “making robots walk”—namely, how to build a developer ecosystem that spans hardware platforms.

When eight companies that are normally competitors—such as UBTECH, Zhiyuan Robotics, and Fourier—appear together on the partner list, the signal is unmistakable: the robotics industry is undergoing a paradigm shift from a “hardware race” to a “software ecosystem.” Yet the real technical challenge is only beginning. How can the same piece of code produce consistent behavior on a bipedal humanoid robot and a four-legged robotic dog? The answer to this question will not only determine commercial success, but also whether robotics technology can truly integrate into everyday life in the way smartphones have.

The OM1 Operating System: The Robotics World’s “Android Moment,” or Another Fragmentation Trap?

OpenMind’s open-source operating system, OM1, is promoted as the foundation for “cross-embodiment robotics.” From an engineering standpoint, however, this promise entails nearly contradictory requirements. The diversity of robotic hardware far exceeds that of smartphones—from wheeled platforms to bipedal humanoids, from industrial robotic arms to companion robots—each with vastly different degrees of freedom, sensor configurations, and motion capabilities. To deliver a unified development experience across this diversity, OM1 must make fundamental architectural choices.

The design philosophy of the hardware abstraction layer must shift from being “device-oriented” to “capability-oriented.” Developers would no longer program a specific joint on a specific robot, but instead issue commands targeting abstract motion capabilities. This requires the system kernel to maintain a dynamic inventory of each robot’s capabilities in real time, intelligently scheduling available resources based on actual hardware configurations and environmental conditions.

The design of security sandboxes becomes another critical challenge. Unlike mobile apps, where crashes typically result in nothing more than a restart, failures in robot applications can cause physical harm. OM1 must implement multi-layered safety isolation to ensure that third-party applications cannot directly access low-level motor drivers. All motion commands must pass strict feasibility checks. The system needs to compute in real time whether each action stays within the robot’s physical limits, avoids collisions, and complies with energy constraints. One innovative solution could be a “progressive permissions” model, in which newly installed applications initially run only in highly constrained simulation environments, gradually gaining greater physical control as their reliability is verified.

Nevertheless, the performance overhead introduced by abstraction layers is unavoidable. Robot control requires millisecond-level real-time responsiveness, and each additional software layer increases latency. OM1 appears to address this challenge with a hybrid execution model: critical control loops, such as balance maintenance, run directly at the hardware layer or within a real-time kernel to ensure minimal latency, while higher-level application logic executes in user space, interacting with lower layers through carefully designed priority scheduling and real-time communication mechanisms. This layered architecture must strike an exact balance between flexibility and performance; any design misstep could result in a system that is either too rigid to support innovation or too flexible to guarantee real-time safety.

A New Reality for Developers: The Unique Challenges of Coding for the Physical World

Developing applications for robots is fundamentally different from developing for smartphones. In the mobile world, developers can assume a relatively stable computing environment—ample memory, continuous power, and standardized sensors. In the physical world, robot applications must constantly contend with changing constraints: joint torque limits, remaining battery capacity, ground friction coefficients, and dynamic obstacles in the surrounding environment.

OpenMind’s app store requires developers to declare detailed physical requirement profiles for each skill, including the number of degrees of freedom required, necessary sensor types, minimum battery capacity, and whether a stable operating platform is needed. The store’s backend matching algorithms intelligently pair these declarations with each robot’s actual capabilities, preventing applications that require precision manipulation from being installed on robots with insufficient hardware configurations.

Uncertainty in the physical world introduces unique challenges to robot programming. Traditional software runs in deterministic computational environments, where identical inputs produce identical outputs. Robot applications, by contrast, must handle sensor noise, actuator errors, and sudden environmental changes. OM1’s software development kit provides a set of probabilistic programming primitives that allow developers to write fault-tolerant code. Instead of issuing absolute commands such as “raise the arm by 30 degrees,” developers describe intentions like “attempt to raise the arm to the target angle; if resistance exceeds a threshold, execute a fallback strategy.” The system automatically records these uncertainty events and uses them to improve future decision-making strategies. More advanced features include cross-robot knowledge transfer: skills learned by an application on one robot model can, after appropriate abstraction and adaptation, be partially transferred to other hardware platforms.

The maturity of the toolchain will ultimately determine the quality of the developer experience. OpenMind provides a web-based robot simulator that allows developers to test application logic without physical hardware. However, the gap between simulation and reality always remains; no simulated environment can fully replicate the complexity of the real world. To address this, OpenMind may have established a crowdsourced testing network, allowing developers to submit applications to a distributed testing pool composed of real robots. These robots, sourced from different manufacturers and operating in diverse environments, can provide varied testing feedback. Test reports not only help developers refine their applications, but also feed into the app store’s ranking algorithms, creating a virtuous cycle of quality improvement.

Business Model Innovation: The Technical Realization of a “Skills Economy”

The OpenMind app store is not merely a technical platform—it is also an economic experiment. Once “robot skills” become tradable commodities, entirely new technical infrastructures are required to manage, trade, and distribute digital property rights. Digital rights management in the robotics domain presents unprecedented complexity. Traditional software piracy prevention focuses on code copying, but robot skills may essentially be motion sequences or control strategies. How can one prevent users from reverse-engineering core algorithms simply by observing robot behavior?

OpenMind’s solution may involve encrypted execution environments, in which critical skill code runs inside hardware-isolated trusted execution environments, receiving encrypted inputs and outputting control signals without exposing internal logic. Another protection mechanism is hardware binding: certain advanced skills require specific sensor configurations or execution precision, naturally creating technical barriers to misuse.

Dynamic pricing models require real-time data support. The actual value of a “home cleaning” skill depends on multiple quantifiable metrics: coverage area, completion time, energy consumption, and user satisfaction ratings. OpenMind’s backend systems continuously collect anonymized performance data and run a complex skill effectiveness evaluation framework, providing factual inputs for dynamic pricing algorithms. Skill developers can choose from multiple business models, including one-time purchases, subscriptions, or pay-per-use, each requiring different metering, billing, and verification mechanisms. More granular models may include tiered pricing—offering basic functionality for free to attract users, while charging for advanced features or professional use cases.

A market for skill composition may give rise to new forms of creation. Just as mobile app workflows chain multiple tools together, robot skills can be composed into complex task sequences through standardized interfaces. A composite “prepare breakfast” skill might combine atomic skills such as “open refrigerator door,” “identify and grasp eggs,” and “safely operate a frying pan.” This requires the system to provide standardized skill interface description languages and composition validation tools, ensuring that combined skills are physically feasible and do not cause robots to attempt conflicting actions simultaneously. The creation of skill compositions itself may become a new creative category, and “robot skill architects” who excel at integrating existing skills into new use cases could emerge as a new profession.

On January 27, 2026, OpenMind announced that its robot app store had gone live on Apple’s App Store. At first glance, it may appear to be just another tech company launching a new product. A closer look, however, reveals something more profound: this is the first serious attempt by the robotics industry to address a challenge even more fundamental than “making robots walk”—namely, how to build a developer ecosystem that spans hardware platforms.

When eight companies that are normally competitors—such as UBTECH, Zhiyuan Robotics, and Fourier—appear together on the partner list, the signal is unmistakable: the robotics industry is undergoing a paradigm shift from a “hardware race” to a “software ecosystem.” Yet the real technical challenge is only beginning. How can the same piece of code produce consistent behavior on a bipedal humanoid robot and a four-legged robotic dog? The answer to this question will not only determine commercial success, but also whether robotics technology can truly integrate into everyday life in the way smartphones have.

The OM1 Operating System: The Robotics World’s “Android Moment,” or Another Fragmentation Trap?

OpenMind’s open-source operating system, OM1, is promoted as the foundation for “cross-embodiment robotics.” From an engineering standpoint, however, this promise entails nearly contradictory requirements. The diversity of robotic hardware far exceeds that of smartphones—from wheeled platforms to bipedal humanoids, from industrial robotic arms to companion robots—each with vastly different degrees of freedom, sensor configurations, and motion capabilities. To deliver a unified development experience across this diversity, OM1 must make fundamental architectural choices.

The design philosophy of the hardware abstraction layer must shift from being “device-oriented” to “capability-oriented.” Developers would no longer program a specific joint on a specific robot, but instead issue commands targeting abstract motion capabilities. This requires the system kernel to maintain a dynamic inventory of each robot’s capabilities in real time, intelligently scheduling available resources based on actual hardware configurations and environmental conditions.

The design of security sandboxes becomes another critical challenge. Unlike mobile apps, where crashes typically result in nothing more than a restart, failures in robot applications can cause physical harm. OM1 must implement multi-layered safety isolation to ensure that third-party applications cannot directly access low-level motor drivers. All motion commands must pass strict feasibility checks. The system needs to compute in real time whether each action stays within the robot’s physical limits, avoids collisions, and complies with energy constraints. One innovative solution could be a “progressive permissions” model, in which newly installed applications initially run only in highly constrained simulation environments, gradually gaining greater physical control as their reliability is verified.

Nevertheless, the performance overhead introduced by abstraction layers is unavoidable. Robot control requires millisecond-level real-time responsiveness, and each additional software layer increases latency. OM1 appears to address this challenge with a hybrid execution model: critical control loops, such as balance maintenance, run directly at the hardware layer or within a real-time kernel to ensure minimal latency, while higher-level application logic executes in user space, interacting with lower layers through carefully designed priority scheduling and real-time communication mechanisms. This layered architecture must strike an exact balance between flexibility and performance; any design misstep could result in a system that is either too rigid to support innovation or too flexible to guarantee real-time safety.

A New Reality for Developers: The Unique Challenges of Coding for the Physical World

Developing applications for robots is fundamentally different from developing for smartphones. In the mobile world, developers can assume a relatively stable computing environment—ample memory, continuous power, and standardized sensors. In the physical world, robot applications must constantly contend with changing constraints: joint torque limits, remaining battery capacity, ground friction coefficients, and dynamic obstacles in the surrounding environment.

OpenMind’s app store requires developers to declare detailed physical requirement profiles for each skill, including the number of degrees of freedom required, necessary sensor types, minimum battery capacity, and whether a stable operating platform is needed. The store’s backend matching algorithms intelligently pair these declarations with each robot’s actual capabilities, preventing applications that require precision manipulation from being installed on robots with insufficient hardware configurations.

Uncertainty in the physical world introduces unique challenges to robot programming. Traditional software runs in deterministic computational environments, where identical inputs produce identical outputs. Robot applications, by contrast, must handle sensor noise, actuator errors, and sudden environmental changes. OM1’s software development kit provides a set of probabilistic programming primitives that allow developers to write fault-tolerant code. Instead of issuing absolute commands such as “raise the arm by 30 degrees,” developers describe intentions like “attempt to raise the arm to the target angle; if resistance exceeds a threshold, execute a fallback strategy.” The system automatically records these uncertainty events and uses them to improve future decision-making strategies. More advanced features include cross-robot knowledge transfer: skills learned by an application on one robot model can, after appropriate abstraction and adaptation, be partially transferred to other hardware platforms.

The maturity of the toolchain will ultimately determine the quality of the developer experience. OpenMind provides a web-based robot simulator that allows developers to test application logic without physical hardware. However, the gap between simulation and reality always remains; no simulated environment can fully replicate the complexity of the real world. To address this, OpenMind may have established a crowdsourced testing network, allowing developers to submit applications to a distributed testing pool composed of real robots. These robots, sourced from different manufacturers and operating in diverse environments, can provide varied testing feedback. Test reports not only help developers refine their applications, but also feed into the app store’s ranking algorithms, creating a virtuous cycle of quality improvement.

Business Model Innovation: The Technical Realization of a “Skills Economy”

The OpenMind app store is not merely a technical platform—it is also an economic experiment. Once “robot skills” become tradable commodities, entirely new technical infrastructures are required to manage, trade, and distribute digital property rights. Digital rights management in the robotics domain presents unprecedented complexity. Traditional software piracy prevention focuses on code copying, but robot skills may essentially be motion sequences or control strategies. How can one prevent users from reverse-engineering core algorithms simply by observing robot behavior?

OpenMind’s solution may involve encrypted execution environments, in which critical skill code runs inside hardware-isolated trusted execution environments, receiving encrypted inputs and outputting control signals without exposing internal logic. Another protection mechanism is hardware binding: certain advanced skills require specific sensor configurations or execution precision, naturally creating technical barriers to misuse.

Dynamic pricing models require real-time data support. The actual value of a “home cleaning” skill depends on multiple quantifiable metrics: coverage area, completion time, energy consumption, and user satisfaction ratings. OpenMind’s backend systems continuously collect anonymized performance data and run a complex skill effectiveness evaluation framework, providing factual inputs for dynamic pricing algorithms. Skill developers can choose from multiple business models, including one-time purchases, subscriptions, or pay-per-use, each requiring different metering, billing, and verification mechanisms. More granular models may include tiered pricing—offering basic functionality for free to attract users, while charging for advanced features or professional use cases.

A market for skill composition may give rise to new forms of creation. Just as mobile app workflows chain multiple tools together, robot skills can be composed into complex task sequences through standardized interfaces. A composite “prepare breakfast” skill might combine atomic skills such as “open refrigerator door,” “identify and grasp eggs,” and “safely operate a frying pan.” This requires the system to provide standardized skill interface description languages and composition validation tools, ensuring that combined skills are physically feasible and do not cause robots to attempt conflicting actions simultaneously. The creation of skill compositions itself may become a new creative category, and “robot skill architects” who excel at integrating existing skills into new use cases could emerge as a new profession.