Conference interpreters need to keep an open but also critical mind. Here Lourdes de Rioja offers another of her excellent interviews. This one with Barry Olsen of Kudo.
For now, the huge problem with all platforms without exception, from what I understand, is poor sound. This will remain an impediment until they make the necessary investments to secure ISO sound.
I believe remote meetings generally, and remote interpreting in particular, are going to continue and grow. Remote may be a factor for growth and more work for interpreters, it seems to me. A local NGO in a small town in Ohio might now think of using interpreting whereas before it was impossible to fly in an entire team, etc. We all know the argument.
The big issue, in my view, remains quality. If too many companies and other organizations try interpreting and conclude that it doesn't work, the market will not grow. If poor sound or poor interpreters undermine quality, the market will stagnate. On the other hand, if platforms are sincerely ready to work to ensure that interpreting can be done in good conditions, with good ISO sound and authentic, professional conference interpreters, that's a good thing. If I am not mistaken, NO platform, as I've stated many times, has ISO compliant sound. This has been a huge factor in interpreter health and the quality of interpretation.
I have no opinion to share here about any particular platform. But I think professional conference interpreters need to collaborate with platforms to make sure they genuinely work towards the quality sound and other conditions that will ensure the quality and credibility of conference interpreting.