The Google vice president's three-day wedding was anchored at the San Francisco Four Seasons, where she lives, and involved command performances by the rock band The Killers and renowned chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten, as we reported yesterday. Vogue, eagerly fed event details by fashion-obsessed Mayer, adds the detail that the actual ceremony took place on Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay, and was followed by a custom fireworks display.

Vongerichten prepared lobster and beef tenderloin, Vogue adds, followed by cake from New York baker Ron Ben-Israel, making the wedding feast something of a shut out for all those Michelin-starred local chefs. As for the clothes:

• Wedding dress by Naeem Khan, who did Michelle Obama's first state dinner dress and has outfitted Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncé for events. Vogue said the dress included "a bodice crocheted and embroidered in snowflake lace" and was paired with "a floor-length bridal coat."
  
• Veil by Carolina Herrera.
  
• Shoes: Mary Jane by Stuart Wietzman "with a blue crystal design on the instep."
  
• Groom Zach Bogue wore a Broni tux and a "somewhat funky" shirt from Etro.
  
• Bridesmaids were in jewel-tone dresses from Reem Acra.'
  
• Mayer's ivory "going-away number" was based on something Jackie Kennedy wore when touring India.

So just your typical three-day wedding with fireworks, The Killers, Jean-George catering and a spread in Vogue. The pictures, we'd wager, will be forthcoming in Vogue's print edition. But someone must have some casual snaps in the meantime, not to mention more information about that singing toast from Google exec Craig Silverstein. Data to ryan@valleywag.com.

The Wall Street Journal's Matthew Karnitschnig imagines the company, including the still-proud journalists at Time Inc., as the pet of Rupert Murdoch, or perhaps of some dreary cable television provider like Comcast or DirecTV.

Maybe. As troubled as the AOL division was, it at least hypothetically had growth potential Time Warner's remaining divisions don't offer. But it's safe to say Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes (pictured) isn't going to sell to Murdoch without some ironclad protection against getting shanked by Murdoch's MySpace CEO Jon Miller, who Bewkes has repeatedly screwed over.

Newspapers have stuffed their Sunday editions full of coupons for as long as we can remember, so there must be some money in being the middleman who passes on word of discounts and deals. The difference is that coupons are simple. They are delivered to you and then you just cut them out and hand them to the cashier when you buy your milk. Microsoft's cashback plan has a higher barrier to entry. We're skeptical as to how many searchers will take the time to give Microsoft access to their bank accounts in order to earn a couple pennies back on the book they just bought from Amazon.com.

Aside from keeping it out of Yahoo's hands, we remain confused as to why Microsoft would want AOL. Yes, Time Warner's online division has an impressive advertising reach across the Internet, thanks to its Advertising.com network. But it doesn't actually own most of the websites which carry the ads it sells. And of those it does own, how much of their traffic is from people who haven't figured out how to change their homepage? (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

When you look back at this fiasco, the critical error on Yahoo's part was doing nothing for 5 weeks after the initial offer. They thought they could play hard to get. We've gotten a round-trip back to $19.

Yahoo wants to play it now like Microsoft was the one that rejected the deal, but even when Yahoo execs finally did meet with Microsoft on March 10, they refused to discuss how much they actually would sell the company for. Yahoo used antitrust concerns — the one's they've ignored doing a deal with Google — as excuse for why they couldn't talk price. Even an April 15 meeting at Bill Gates's father's law firm in Portland went without Yang saying how much it would take. Microsoft's top lawyer Brad Smith called it "one of the strangest meetings that we've ever had." Finally, on May 2, Yahoo's board came up with a number: $37 per share. But by then, four months after Microsoft made its offer public, Ballmer had already decided he didn't want the deal. In fact, reports the Wall Street Journal, Ballmer made his decision in the middle of March — after about 5 weeks of Yahoo silence.

With 11.4 million users in May, Google News ranked No. 8 among news sites, far behind Yahoo News, which was No. 1 with 35.8 million visitors, according to Nielsen Online. Its growth rate of 10 percent over the last two years is far slower than those of most other large news Web sites. In the last two years, second-ranked MSNBC.com grew by 42 percent, adding 10.4 million users. Traffic at CNN.com and nytimes.com grew even faster.

The Times even ropes in a few professorial types to rip on the few changes to Google News. “I’ve actually been surprised at how little it has evolved, at least on the surface,” said one. “I’m guessing that Google isn’t so sure what to do with it.”

Publishers rarely stick with ad networks when they reach a certain size, and Glam has a reputation for signing up new sites with expensive guarantees. (A Glam spokesperson claims it's not seeing sites leave after the guarantees expire.) Ultimately, though, Glam's sites have two fates: Either they never get large enough to matter, or they grow too big for Glam to justify its cut of sales. At that point, they'll likely leave or get bought outright by Glam — a considerable future liability for shareholders.

None of this means Glam won't sell. Glam CEO Samir Arora sold a majority stake in his startup NetObjects to IBM in 1997. Four years later, IBM sold the company off in parts for a pittance. Glam backer Tim Draper of Draper Fisher Jurvetson profitably sold similar lemons — Hotmail to Microsoft, and Skype to eBay. We doubt Glam's viability. We don't doubt Glam's backers ability to sell the company. To suckers.

• Early April 2007: CBS management visited CNET's offices in San Francisco, met with members of CNET's management team, including Neil Ashe, Chief Executive Officer of CNET. No specific proposals resulted.
• December 2007: Mr. Moonves contacted Jarl Mohn, Chairman of the CNET Board.
• January 2008: Mr. Moonves contacted Mr. Ashe.
• January 30: the CBS Board reviewed CNET.On March 18, 2008, Moonves and Reynolds visited CNET in San Francisco.
• March 31: the CBS Board authorized CBS' management to pursue a business combination transaction with CNET.
• April 2: Reynolds called Ashe. Ashe indicated that the CNET Board might consider a proposal if properly valued. CBS was willing to consider an all-cash transaction at a 40% premium.
• April 9: Mr. Ashe called Mr. Reynolds. The CNET Board considered the CBS price indication to be too low. Reynolds reiterated that CBS' price indication did not reflect any value that might be uncovered in due diligence.
• April 24: Moonves contacted Mr. Ashe to continue discussions.
• May 1: Mr. Reynolds called Mr. Ashe reiterated a price of $10.50 per share and informed Mr. Ashe that CBS had acquired Shares.
• May 2: Mr. Ashe reiterated that CBS' proposed price did not reflect the value of CNET's agreement with Yahoo! Inc. and certain cost cutting efforts. Morgan Stanley called Reynolds and encouraged CBS to present terms in writing.
• May 5: CBS delivered a letter, which specified the terms at $10.75 per Share a 42% premium. Morgan Stanley called Reynolds and noted that CBS' price indication was too low.
• May 7: CBS and CNET entered into a confidentiality agreement allowing CBS to conduct a review of CNET.
• May 8: CBS' legal counsel commenced review of non-public information regarding CNET.
• May 10: Reynolds informed Morgan Stanley CBS was to increase to $11.25 per Share. Morgan Stanleyindicated that CBS would need to increase the purchase price.
• May 11: Mr. Reynolds indicated to the Morgan Stanley representative that CBS was willing to increase its proposed price to $11.50 per Share.
• May 12: Mr. Reynolds noted that CBS' proposed price of $11.50 per Share was CBS' best and final price, but that CBS could agree to a reduced termination fee.
• On May 14 and into the following early morning, CBS and CNET completed final negotiations.

But after Yahoo cofounders Jerry Yang and David Filo showed it would take a messy proxy fight to push a merger through at Microsoft's price, Gates lost patience and quashed the whole enterprise, reminding Ballmer that Microsoft really just wanted Yahoo's search business. Now Yang and company — under pressure from activist shareholders — crave a full merger and believe it to be a "a strategic imperative for Microsoft," according to one source who also observes: "I think sometimes that their execs must be smoking something."

[In stage whisper] Corporate raider Carl Icahn wants Yahoo to sell out to Microsoft, but Microsoft only wants to buy part of the company and Yahoo executives want to outsource search advertising to Google — probably so Yahoo engineers can get a look under the hood at the engine powering the bus that's running the company over. Valleywag wants more egg-throwers. (Photo by dfinnecy)

In light of developments since the withdrawal of the Microsoft proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft announced that it is continuing to explore and pursue its alternatives to improve and expand its online services and advertising business. Microsoft is considering and has raised with Yahoo! an alternative that would involve a transaction with Yahoo! but not an acquisition of all of Yahoo! Microsoft is not proposing to make a new bid to acquire all of Yahoo! at this time, but reserves the right to reconsider that alternative depending on future developments and discussions that may take place with Yahoo! or discussions with shareholders of Yahoo! or Microsoft or with other third parties. There of course can be no assurance that any transaction will result from these discussions.