Okay, someone explain this to me: Intel, a company that makes microprocessors, is backing and selling — but not profiting from — a suite of “Enterprise 2.0″ software for companies that includes blogging software (Typepad), a wiki (Socialtext), and RSS feed software (Simplefeed and Newsgator), called Suite Two.

Is the microchip giant hoping that a little Web 2.0 pixie dust will get sprinkled on it, just like Level 3 seems to be? It’s obviously not in it to make any money, since it has already stated that it doesn’t intend to make any from the venture. So it must be hoping that companies will need to upgrade their machines to dual-core monsters to run all that Enterprise 2.0 gee-whizzery, right? Please.

The whole point of these kinds of software is that they are lighter and more versatile — and cheaper — than traditional ways of doing business with employees and customers. So why would Intel want to bundle them up and charge an arm and a leg for them? More to the point, why would anyone go for that deal?

The implication is that big companies are so slow-moving and dim-witted that they need the Intel name to get them comfortable with anything new, and are willing to pay through the nose for it. Unfortunately, that’s probably not far from the truth in a lot of cases. And meanwhile, Intel the plumber gets to look all cool by hanging with the hip Web 2.0 crowd.

Update:

Josh Bancroft, who works at Intel, has a great overview on his blog Tiny Screenfuls.

James Surowiecki has written about The Wisdom of Crowds, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of “crowdsourcing,” as Wired magazine put it — aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a former economist and financial journalist who blogs at Confused of Calcutta, has a great post in response to a recent opinion piece in Inc. magazine that argues it does not.

The piece by David Freedman has the ring of Nick “The Prophet of Web 2.0 Doom” Carr about it, with comments such as “the effectiveness of groups, teamwork, collaboration, and consensus is largely a myth” and “Our bias toward groups is counterproductive. And the technology of ubiquitous connectedness is making the problem worse.” A cheerful guy, this David Freedman. He goes on to cite numerous studies that find “groupthink” is a serious problem in corporations, because “groups often breed a false confidence that leads to unsound decisions none of the individuals in the group would have made on their own.”

It’s worth noting that much of what Freedman is talking about when it comes to group decisions — and by extension decisions that are made by collaborative tools such as email, online conference tools, etc. — is a problem because of inter-company dynamics such as being afraid that your boss might find out that you said his idea was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard. To the extent that Web 2.0 apps help take advantage of “anonymous” groups, as it were, this isn’t a problem.

In any case, I won’t summarize all of Freedman’s arguments here. It’s worth reading them — and comments such as “Simply put, when you make it easy for everyone to put in his two cents, with little filtering or accountability, the scum tends to rise to the top.” And it’s worth reading what Rangaswami says in response.

While Freedman dismisses virtually all collaborative software as being just another producer of noise, when what is needed are strong individuals making decisions alone (nice management model, Dave — were you in the army by any chance?) Rangaswami makes the argument for informed consensus, which Web 2.0-style tools can help to bring about.