The point is-there are lucid dreaming devices that work, at least partially. Remee seems to be based on similar principles. In theory Remee is an improvement on those devices, addressing a lot of the common complains about existing lucid dreaming technology. But unless I'm missing something (which is why I asked) it seems really odd to claim that an invention that's supposedly an improvement on existing, (partially) functional devices is "snake oil."

So let me rephrase my question. Given that there are existing, functional devices, based on a similar mechanism, and Remee seems to be an improvement on those devices, why exactly does it qualify as snake oil? Which of my assumptions is wrong?

Lucid dreaming is possible, but not everyone can do it. Of the times I have personally done it, it has been awesome! I achieved it with the reality check method, but I think a device would make it a lot easier..

There is an interesting new iOs app called Dream:on (it's free too) that uses the accelerometer to determine when you are in likely in a REM state, and then it plays audio cues to help get you into a lucid state, instead of flashing lights like the remee.

I haven't had the bed to myself to try it out yet - my wife is a very light sleeper - but in theory both of these devices could work, but don't expect it to happen immediately or every night.. and you may need to incorporate a reality check method too, the device cue would just make it easier to do.

Ok so you're a realist, fine. But I'm curious, do you not think lucid dreaming is real? Or do you just not think it can be triggered with flashing lights?