Yes, because it is only claiming to be better than what they had before. RAW files are camera specific and they introduced camera specific profiles for 70 cameras. It does not appear they are claiming that they now have the best RAW processing around, but only that it is improved over where their ability to deal with RAW files was before.
RAW files contain the black and white information from each photosite on a camera's sensor. In order to turn it in to an image, the data must be interpreted with knowledge of the sensor. The exact color and light response characteristics of each filter in front of each photosite makes a major difference in how much light it gets.
Previously, Google's RAW converter worked solely off the basic pattern of photosites in order to make a generally correct color interpretation, however with camera specific detail, it is able to better judge how the data should be interpreted, and thus comes up with much more accurate color than it could previously do.
The images listed in the article support this conclusion as you can see that it demonstrates how Google's old RAW converter was generic and resulted in color errors on some RAW formats. The new converter takes in to account the model and produces much better conversions than the old.