Internal Browser

It would be nice if the Android app could use a built-in web browser for opening articles. Switching back and forth between NewsBlur and the system browser on Android is quite annoying so being able to view webpages inline would be a welcome change.

Could you please consider it?


1 Like

I would’ve titled this something along the lines of “Internal web browser on Android app” to get the Android community voting on this.

I too think this would be a good feature.


Currently I click a story it instantly appears, and then I click back and I’m back in NewsBlur where I was. With a internal browser, where’s the change? What do I gain?

If anything this would be a step backwards, as the internal browser probably won’t pick up my chrome settings, won’t work with history and browser sync, won’t allow me to bookmark the page, and will probably have less features and be slower than the dedicated browser.

It’ll also increase the size of the app and add complexity increasing development time and support costs.

If somebody wants to fill out the “pros” column, I’m all ears. I’m just not seeing any myself.


I am a little unclear on what is being requested here.

When you are viewing a story in the Android app, you are viewing it in the system’s default in-line browser. If you tap on the title of the story, it will open in whatever browser you have configured to handle web pages system-wide, of which the stock browser is one of the choices.

The app does not change or customize the embedded browser or limit your choices for opening links in any way.

ojiikun, I do agree that would be a nice addition. I have it in the iOS app and I greatly prefer not having to leave the app. I added a preference to make chrome/safari the default, but it’s not on by default. And there’s a Send To button in the in-app browser to take you to safari/chrome if you choose to. But this saves you 1 sec per-story.

I guess I am still not understanding the nature of the request. Perhaps this is some iOS concept that isn’t translating over?

Stories are already rendered with the system browser. (There isn’t really any other option on Android) If you don’t like the system browser, you can open it in any external browser of your choice, including the stand-alone system browser or 3rd party browsers.

I don’t quite get what is being requested either.

Is the request perhaps that clicking on the story title will open in the same embedded web view?

The Android app doesn’t seem to have an equivalent of the “Original” view on the site - the only way to see the original page is to open it in an external browser app. Perhaps this is what people want? (though I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, and I doubt I’d use such a feature myself)

I assumed that is what people want.

If this is done please make an option for it.

The reason for the request is because sometimes when clicking on a story you get additional information by going to the original site.

Yes, but why is an embedded browser going to do a better job of that than the real browser does?

DavidSev, It’s faster to get to. And I don’t lose my place like I do when I task switch to the browser.

From what I remember, when I requested this feature a while ago, this isn’t easily possible like it is on iOS. It’s not just a web view in a new child view. Now, what exactly more I don’t know, but that was the case a couple years ago.

I’d only support this on Android if the “internal browser” makes use of Google Chrome’s bandwidth saving feature. Or even better, let us have the option and we get the best of both worlds.

No point paying my telco for bulkier data transfer when it can be compressed and delivered in fewer bytes.

I don’t see how it can be much faster that it already is.
It also doesn’t lose your place, you just hit the back button and you’re back where you were.

As I outlined above, I don’t see how the end user will notice any difference, other than losing all the chrome features.

Ah, if it’s *embedding* a browser in the app, that isn’t really possible, as the browser authors would have to make it available as a library, which for the most part, they haven’t.