And getting some details wrong is fine if you accept criticism with the goal of converging on being correct.
Trump rejects the framework of communicating in correct facts, relying on emotional platitudes instead.
Running with your example, it's as if Trump is boasting that he has cured cancer, because he knows someone who invested in a company that made a marginal improvement to treatment for one type. And then when asked for clarification, he doubles down on his blunt assertion while making fun of the questioner.
If you accept a leader as being an authority, then you're still reassured by this. Everything is under control, because he says so. But if you try to analyze the facts you're hearing to form an independent judgment, he's out to lunch. And it's extremely worrying to hear someone who is not in touch with reality insist that everything is fine, especially when that person is supposed to be responsible.
Yes, he uses words that people understands. No non-tech, non-finance person would know what alphabet is. Regular americans do not know that Google, Inc (a publicly traded company) decided to change its name to Alphabet Inc (still traded under GOOG though, because apparently this snafu is good enough for the NYSE) and create a new subsidiary named Google, and another called Google Life Sciences which is now known as Verily. Most Americans would simply say 'Google'. There is nothing wrong with a POTUS using words that literally everyone understands. If you understand this, you will understand why Trump won.
In service of converging on the nuanced truth, I do agree that the specific of conflating Google and associated entities isn't a particularly big deal.
The suspect bit here is the claim of "1700 people working on it", which doesn't add up no matter how you try to slice it. It obviously doesn't take that many people to make a website. It doesn't even take that many people to scale a website, given the modern options available. I think the most plausible explanation is trying to claim entire departments responsible for the infrastructure that will be used, but they're still not "working" on it. Regardless of how the figure could possibly be justified, it doesn't have any purpose in the speech besides conveying a feeling of big/strong/powerful - ie an emotional platitude.
I do understand why Trump won. I personally have been quite tolerant of Trump, chalking most of the outrage up to differences in taste, and trying to explain this to others. That is, tolerant up until now when we're three weeks behind with our society's coronavirus response, and he's still spouting ineffectual bullshit.