PC sales are reported to be in decline, and it isn't good for any of us. According to MarketWatch:

Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices are set to report first-quarter financials next week, as the chip giants wrestle with growing concerns about the trajectory of the personal computer market.

These worries were underscored this week when both IDC and Gartner Inc. reported a decline in PC sales in the first quarter as the consumer market weakened and the sector took a hit from the rise of tablets, now seen as a serious threat to segments of that sector.

I've given this some thought, and I have both an explanation of the situation and a solution to the problem.

First of all, the reliability and power of today's machines have something to do with all this. The current generation of PCs has outstripped the power demands for desktop computing to such an extent that it's ridiculous. A three-year-old machine can easily handle almost everything thrown at it, without faltering.

Video editing and rendering programs are the only programs that put any pressure on today's machines. So the turnover is nothing like it was back in the 1980s. I reckon a top machine today is good for five years of service or more. And with hot chips, like the Intel Sandy Bridge chips, it's inexpensive, too. So the replacement market is shot.

Now the immediate excuse all the PC vendor folks will have is that people are spending more time with the iPhone and iPad. Again, this is true but has nothing to do with the waning sales of PCs. These are different devices for different purposes.

So what's the problem? The problem is marketing. The big boys, AMD and Intel in particular, and the computer manufacturers, such as Acer, Dell and HP, have fallen down on the job.

There needs to be a trade organization that promotes PC use to an extreme. Where is it? Where is the organization promoting the real gap in PC use: multiple home units? By this, I mean there should be multiple machines in every household. A husband, wife, and three kids should have a minimum of five machines, with the husband and wife possibly having more than one (add laptops). Perhaps the kids could have a more than one, as well.

I sense that this sort of thing is seen as extravagant or decadent. But it's actually practical. Who needs family members sharing machines?

How many families that you know equip the whole household with individual computers? If not, why not? As I have pointed out in previous columns, a great machine can be had for $300. In the 1980s, a typical machine cost $2,500. Today you can afford to have more than a few machines around.

So where's the advertising that shows poor Lucy wanting to do her homework on the one, lone, family computer, but can't because her dad's using it to work on his taxes. Lucy will either get an F or have to stay up all night to finish her assignment. She needs her own computer.

There are dozens of examples of this sort of thing, which can be exploited to encourage the purchase of multiple household computers. I see no effort to do any of this, and meanwhile sales are down and everyone is moaning about it.

The fact of the matter is the companies that should be promoting ubiquitous desktop computing are doing a poor job of selling. For example, the multiple machine meme doesn't even exist, when it should be common.

This all began around 1999 during the dot come bubble (just look at the flat stock prices since). All the companies got fat and lazy when thousands and thousands of start-ups and small companies were ramping up, and the computer companies (and thus the chip companies) became order-takers. Their idea of marketing was answering the phone to sell massive amounts of machines to new companies.

Hey jokers, that ended a decade ago. Get back to work.

The problem may be that all these folks have lost the ability to sell that they once had. That's the real crux of the problem.

You can Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter @therealdvorak.

More John C. Dvorak:

Go off-topic with John C. Dvorak.