Not necessarily true. Google's result used a programmable universal quantum computer for a specific task; the point of the experiment was not just to show that it can do this specific convoluted task faster than classical supercomputers, but also to show how powerful the quantum computer they've built is and how well they can control it. What they then did is go on a publish a dozen papers of running many other algorithms on it (of course, for those algorithms the quantum computer is not yet powerful enough to show advantage).
On the other hand, the device used in this experiment is a single-purpose non-universal sampler with very limited applications.
Yeah, google's computer is “more interesting” but wasn't able to outperform a classical computer on any known problem (hence not “quantum supreme”). Then they managed to design a problem, highly specific to their computer's design, that would be too hard to solve on a classical computer (hence “«quantum supreme»”).
On the scale :
0. Computer solves a specifically crafted problem < 1. computer solves one preexisting problem < 2. computer solves several existing problems < 3. computer solves all theoretically solvable problems.
Google's result is at 0, while this is a 1.
(By solve/theoretically solvable I mean: solve faster than a classical computer, and should be solvable faster with quantum than classical)
On the other hand, the device used in this experiment is a single-purpose non-universal sampler with very limited applications.